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

User:HannuMakinen

Some months ago, I had added to the article "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life" some information I considered relevant to the film's low box office numbers, specifically a comparrison to the film "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in which I and many others had seen an apparent remake of the first twenty minutes of "Raiders" into "Cradle". This was mearly trivial information which added to the scope of the artical. However, someone who is known as "TheHandle" did not see it that way, erased what I had written, and left an abusive paragraph in the Discussion page. I had replaced the article, but he deleted it again, this time with statements in which he has refused to allow me to answer. Instead of doing what is required in the Discussion page, "TheHandle" decided to use foul language and behave in a very un-professional manner. Can something be done about it? Carajou 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lara_Croft_Tomb_Raider:_The_Cradle_of_Life

User:Street Scholar

I recently had a run-in with this user over the speedy deletion of some pages he'd worked on. I offered to restore two of them (without going through DRV), but his sexism and personal attacks quickly made the conversation turn. (See the conversation I removed here, as well as my comments (admittedly not the calmest I could have written) here.) Another user alerted me to the fact that he'd been warned for personal attacks in the past (which I had gleaned from his talk page), but I did not realize he had a similar incident report just a few weeks ago (see here). While this was amicably resolved, it seems that he did not learn from the incident. While a person's beliefs are his or her own business, attacking a person based on gender is a clear violation of WP:NPA, and requesting all womankind to respond to his attacks is using WP as a soapbox. I'm not sure if this should go to RfC, since the first attempt to resolve this was "successful". Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- Merope 18:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have encountered similar irreverence to wikipedia norms from this user before.I'm not sure how to link to this, but he made several uploads of images that were blatant copyvios (he put one in Mountain warfare here) which were speedily deleted. However, he had uploaded several such images from the same website that had a clear "All rights reserved" statement on it and, if an admin could assist me, then I can cite the records of the speedy deletions.This shows an irreverence for copyright rules on wikipedia. In addition, a mediated debate progresses on Cheema (see Talk:Cheema) where he continuously misrepresents sources and tries to push a POV without adequate WP:V. Most of the sources cited in the article are fabricated or misrepresented and, when confronted about this by a mediator here ignored the mediator completely and still continues with such tendentious editing (see mediator's assessment here). He has also made numerous veiled ethnic slurs on Talk:Cheema and further misrepresented the facts to try to bait users into argument here is an example. He remains unapologetic for these acts and continues on Talk:Cheema.Hkelkar 19:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"I'm not sure if this should go to RfC, since the first attempt to resolve this was "successful"."

To be honest, I considered it closed at that time for that reason (assuming of course you were referring to the incident on my talk page and elsewhere). However, this doesn't appear to be the case! If the previous incident had been resolved successfully, then surely the same problem wouldn't have arisen again. While this user does have many good and invaluable edits among his contributions, it's also evident that he has displayed/aired these very offensive views on wikipedia throughout the history of his membership and is unlikely to change them. I would say that a firm message needs to be sent - the question of course is what that message would entail, which is a question I cannot answer. The eeasy way has been tried already. --Crimsone 22:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

he persists with his remarks even after he got admonished [1] [2]. He does not seem to have reformed at all.Hkelkar 17:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In light of those attacks (and this edit), I've blocked him for 48h. I'll monitor his edits once the block expires. -- Merope 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This user is thoroughly unpleasant and seems to want to push his distasteful view of women on anyone nearby. It doesn't help that he's insulting and demeaning to those who disagree with him. My own peace of mind (and civility of comments) has slid downward such that I doubt I can interact with him civilly, and that's even without having the gender his bile targets. Wikipedia doesn't need behaviour like this, and he's expressed that it is his God-given duty (literally, as he's excused his words on religious grounds) to not keep it to himself. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He continues his behaviour on his Talk page even while blocked for it.[3] — Saxifrage ✎ 15:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that, too. He's earned himself a week's block. After this, however, I'd like another admin to review his actions. I dislike being the only admin involved in this kind of dispute, particularly when I was one of those attacked. -- Merope 15:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As another admin I endorse the current blocks. If you want I'll make any further blocks as an uninvolved admin. JoshuaZ 16:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And yet more.[4] (Note the linked diff is over three contiguous diffs, to capture his whole edit including corrections.) The message doesn't appear to be getting through his convictions. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

After the latest one, which Merope has had to reply to, I have to say this is amazing. If RfCs were votes and worked like requests for adminship I'm sure he's be blocked in no time (referring to the RfA "gauntlet" that is, per the village pump). I rather suspect he may invite that RfC anyway, but I have to say that I doubt it'll change anything. Worth a try though/ Crimsone 23:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Filing an RfC seems like too much work for this kind of situation: most people would agree that he's in the wrong, but I don't want to drag it out. *sigh* I think I'll just disengage and encourage others to do so as well. Any attacks after his block expires will just earn another block. -- Merope 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Merope and Crimsone, you have already been a lot more patient with this user than I would have been, and the work of filing an RFC is really unnecessary in such a clear case. If they return to the misogynistic insults and contempt on return from this block, I suggest a month's block. Promptly. If that doesn't give them time enough to reflect, it'll be time to think of a community ban. Meanwhile, I agree about disengaging. Bishonen | talk 13:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

Absolutely Bishonen and Merope. (thanks by the way :)). Disengaging does seem the best course for now, pending any further notable event which can of course simply be recorded here for somebody else to see and deal with as appropriate, which if nothing else should further indicate consensus to this editor. --Crimsone 15:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Block of NBGPWS

I have blocked NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a month due to ongoing issues about civility as posted at the personal attack noticeboard [5] and based on the fact that NBGPWS had already been blocked 6 times by 6 different admins in the last two months. NBGPWS was offered to be unblocked to post an Rfc or go and file a case with arbcom and declined. He is now posting links to what he claims is misuse of WP:BLP by a third party for their political gain and I am requesting a neutral admin look at the following link and see if there is any merit to his claims.[6] Thanks.--MONGO 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No comment on the link; general comment on the block--support as he has been doing a lot of trolling recently. Not sure about the duration as it seems a big escalation from a week, but I trust your judgement. Thatcher131 11:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the article he is upset about, the content he wanted left in may not technically be a violation of BLP since the persons aren't named, but it is definitely un-encyclopedic axe-grinding, and its removal certainly doesn't justify acting out rather than following the normal dispute resolution processes for article content. Thatcher131 12:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional harrassment by this user

• Vandalism:
  • [7] [8] user just keeps adding it. And to others pages [9] [10], that is two times to the same page, and in the same exact section, notice the semi threat attached. They then started using it for edit summaries when adressing me as a means of intimidation. [11], there own user history also reflects this [12]
• Insults and labeling:
  • deletionists" / "deletionist hit squad" - [13][14][15][16][17]
  • Wiki Stalinists" - [18]
• Inappropriate comments:
  • "WHAT???? If you think THAT'S an attack, You need more (or less) Byron!" [19]

    Byron reffering to The Byron Technique, "a sexual technique in which two male homosexual partners are involved"

--NuclearZer0 10:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(Procedural note: MONGO has since reduced the block to 48 hours "due to email".)

NBGPWS's intentions are clear from his username: "Neocons Be Gone, Protest Warrior Sucks". Until recently, NBG has put a great deal of effort into vexing supporters of Protest Warrior at that article and related articles. In other words, NBGPWS is a special-purpose troll account. NBG has since branched out into wild claims at AfD and DRV pages. NBG's marked problems with spelling, grammar and wikisyntax seem to fade out when he gets really het up, suggesting to me that NBGPWS may be a sock-puppet account. Is a longer ban appropriate? CWC(talk) 11:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I also request this considering the additional information I provided above as well as the information now provided by CWC of the users name. --NuclearZer0 12:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The question really shouldn't be whether he is vexing "supportors" of Protest Warrior. Is he vexing _neutral_ editors at those articles? At any rate, MONGO had his reason for the block and he had his reasons for the shortening, and there's nothing new presented here that wasn't known before. Derex 12:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Mongo's block wasnt based on the information I listed, I believe, I am sure Mongo can state if it was or not however. In any event this is a noticeboard and both I and CWC feel this users actions require further attention from administrators. --NuclearZer0 12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I reduced his block which now should expire in about 40 hours. He promised me he would be nice...so give him a chance and if the same patterns start up again, then the block will probably be reinstated. Nobody better be baiting him either as folks are usually hot anyway when they come off a block. I wish everyone would let the votes do their job and not let the upcoming U.S. elections over run Wikipedia...I never trusted a politician anyway, no matter what their politics are.--MONGO 12:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone been baiting him in the first place? He's made a habit of baiting other people since Day One; he hardly needs anyone else to help dig a hole for himself. Rogue 9 18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ive been remaining neutral on the Protest Warrior article, and he has tried using me as an individual as a consensus to push his agenda, when I was reasonably trying to support his argument. Id certainly say thats vexing, because it does a good job in deamonizing me. Im sure his block log speaks for itself, and I dont take "He'll be nice" at face value by any means. Piuro 19:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Update to my comment above for full disclosure: NBGPWS recently stated that his username "now stands for Nothing But Goodness, Protest Warrior (and others) Spincontrol". He did not discuss what it previously stood for. CWC(talk) 00:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

He posted on PW under the handle NeoconsBeGone, and after being banned, used NeoconsBeGoneProtestWarriorSux on at least one other forum. He's not fooling anyone who's had the misfortune of interacting with him in the past. Rogue 9 10:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

He created a new user, now: User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All --NuclearZer0 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack Cox - Daniel Brandt's plagiarism data

Jack Cox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been contributing to Wikipedia since February 2005 and has some ten thousand edits under his belt.

Daniel Brandt's recent plagiarism report uncovered that Jack had added text without attribution from the Utah History Encyclopedia, which is not a public domain resource, to the article on Utah governor Henry H. Blood. Following Brandt's lead I've found that Jack Cox also plagiarized from the same source in writing articles on Charles R. Mabey, John Christopher Cutler, Heber Manning Wells, William Spry, Herbert B. Maw, George Dewey Clyde, Calvin L. Rampton and Scott M. Matheson - all of them Utah governors. In each case I've deleted the articles and restored pre-Jack versions where there were any.

I have checked a few of Jack's other contributions and found one more plagiarism incident, Charlie Wyse, which was not from the same source. Obviously I have made nothing like a comprehensive check of Jack's thousands of edits, most of which don't have an edit summary. It his highly likely that multiple copyright violations inserted by him are still out there.

Looking at Jack's talk page I notice that OrphanBot doesn't like him and the feeling is mutual I get the feeling that this contributor habitually doesn't exercise enough caution in handling copyrighted material. Please take whatever action you feel is appropriate. We would of course be fully justified in banning him but if someone could engage him productively, get him to clean up his act and help in identifying old boo-boos that could be even more valuable.

I'd also like to encourage more admins to get involved with the project on identifying serial plagiarists at User:W.marsh/list. We've already found multiple longstanding copyright violations starting with the data from Brandt and looking at other contributions by the same editors. Haukur 12:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• RJNeb2 (talk · contribs) seems to be a serial offender, too. We do need more admins on this... it seems some of these people have been quietly plagiarizing for months and even years. --W.marsh 15:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Could somebody link to the 'Daniel Brandt's recent plagiarism report'? I'd like to read about it, and I am sure some other editors would like that, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's on wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html - there are also some posts on wikipediareview.com where he lays out his methodology as it developed. Haukur 22:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no-one stepped forward I blocked him myself. He's asked for a review of the block. I, of course, have no objections to someone unblocking him (or shortening the block) if they think that's justified but I hope that whoever does it will undertake to mentor him a bit. You don't just accidentally plagiarize article after article and you don't accidentally make edits like this. Haukur 22:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is going to sound odd, but has anyone thought to do a checkuser for Cox and Brandt? Admittedly, I mat be overly suspicious, but it would not be the first time I've seen a troll cause the very situation they're complaining about. Justin Eiler 22:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone runs CheckUzer, they should be running the comparison against Primetime, the most notorious copyright violator.

Briefs-related articles - WP:HOAX??

Recently there seems to be a few articles about briefs being created, many of them I suspect to be WP:HOAXes.

This may require further investigation. --SimonTheFox 15:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please point me to some.--Andeh 15:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

At a glance I'd say [20] or [21] is what Simon is referring to; looks like more Colberrorism. -- nae'blis 16:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

These articles don't seem to be created because of Colbert, I suspect it's rather more that there is a user/a group of users obsessed with briefs. --SimonTheFox 16:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the second briefs-related section to appear on AN/I today. The first was added about twenty minutes before this one [22] by User:Pajnax. It was then removed a few minutes later by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Just pointing this out, draw from it what you may. Metros232 16:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's kids from Range High School, SimonTheFox is a student there, so is Pajnax. All coming from an Internet for Learning grid of IPs. --Neil McCarthy (Internet for Learning) 17:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one of these bored kids created his own long term abuse section recently (I deleted it). Basically he/they plan to create a fake article, nominate it for AfD and swarm it with disruptive fake Keep "votes". I suggest you delete the pages and any AfDs on sight.--Konst.able^Talk 23:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Briefs, eh? Wikinews has had a problem with a "briefs vandal" where a sockpuppet army (one sockpuppet at a time) would basically rise and create articles about briefs. They, of course, get banned quickly, do the CheckUser, and get on with our lives. Anyways, Wikipedia may be encountering the same thing. —this is messedrocker (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Simple: delete silly hoax articles on sight, protect and block/ban for repeat offenses. Once the person behinds it realises they're wasting quite a bit of effort on nothing at all, they'll stop. If it does get to be a bother, a call to the school might be in order. (Note: I only remember one briefs-related hoax article, Briefsism, which I've just protected against re-creation). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prince_Charles_underwear_heist - another schoolboy hoax! What is it with these schoolkids? SunStarNet; 20:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like someone out there desperately wants to be a "named vandal" a la Willy on Wheels. What they apparently aren't aware of is that these days with WP:DENY and WP:RBI, there aren't going to be any more Willys or famous vandals. Besides, even Willy had a certain silly wit. The briefs stuff is just plain dumb and boring. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Truthseeker 85.5's disruptive behaviour

I'm hereby reporting User:Truthseeker 85.5's behaviour, that is becoming more and more disruptive with time.

Originally an anonymous and variable IP stalking several people on WP, his finally made an account and was warned by Alex Bakharev and Blnguyen against such kind of stalking [23].

He was again warned by Bishonen for RFA disruption and PAs: [24]

Just a few days ago, he was warned by Alex and Piotrus as per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policy: [25]

I warned him yet another time for personal attacks just today. Indeed, I discovered that he has been spamming people's talk pages to vote on a (in)famous WP:RM regarding the Jogaila article. In addition to that, his tone was deeply inflammatory and offensive (see an example here).

Needless to say, he promptly blanked his talk page for "archiving" [26] Of course, no archive files was made, it is just plain BS to remove all these warnings.

Based on this, I request that a stern action should be taken against such kind of disruptive behaviour. Thanks in advance, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That is some disturibng behavior. I propose a short block, as I believe it is the user's first. Hopefully, the blocks don't need to escalate in time and severity as time continues. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 13:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've restored his user page talk warnings, blocked him for three days, and asked him to consider why this happened and how he could change his behavior. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 13:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. Such behaviour is indeed not tolerable on Wikipedia... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

While Truthseeker should mind WP:NPA more, please note that his behaviour (which is inexcusable and I do support the block) is only a reply to comments on Talk:Jogaila such as 'I am amazed at the tireless activities of some Polish guys, who manage simultaneously to promote their agenda'; ' I don't see why the opinion of four nations is dismissed so carelessly, in order to please the Poles', ' let's give the Poles what they want and add the stupid diacritics', It looks like that you voted on hatred'... if Truthseeker is blocked for his comments, those other editors should be at least warned for their part in this flame war.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are quoting, quote properly: It looks like that you voted on hatred not knowing the main problem here. The present title of article bears Lithuanian name of the monarch, the original one which he personally used till death. By taking baptism Jogaila received and new name; now Poles trying to rename this article by presenting new one Wladyslaw II Jagiello, which is not his baptism name at all. And I do not see here any “childish name-calling” and even do not see “they gather voters and blacklist others”. For Jogaila to stay, voting many different people – from Lithuania, Belgium, Russia, Scotland etc.The message was to find out the reason of the content delivered by particular contributor, which was: “my opposition to acts by propagandists on Portal Russia”, “I dislike childish name-calling”, “way they gather voters and blacklist others.” And mine message was not hostile and insulting, and was delivered to better understand the problem of complex voting not to bring flame wars and was not connected to User:Truthseeker 85.5. M.K. 16:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First, to put things mildly, that statement is not true. This guy was an anon IP stalker in the first place, resorting on dynamic IP to turn down any block attempt, then recieved warnings (including one of Piotrus') back in September (and even August if memory serves). He should have been blocked back then, but for some reason wasn't. Plus, he spammed talk pages and blanked his own in an attempt to delete warnings. He also disrupted an RfA with PAs. So all this stuff is only a catch-up for a block that should have been applied long ago.

Second, since when is it permitted to reply to incivility with incivility? That's absolutely false. Even if some statements were made (and while borderline, they don't reach the heights of Truthseeker's own comments), it is NOT a reason to go spam talkpages, be incivil, blanking your own talk page and so on.

Consequently, a) the block is well deserved, b) I don't see what's the problem is. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing this block, but I am asking if this is the only user that should have been warned/blocked in this particular dispute?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right, this contributor actions should be evaluated too: [27] [28] [29] M.K. 20:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was rather thinking yours contributions should be closely evaluated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Too soft: permaban for extreme trolling and xenophobia is warranted

User:Truthseeker 85.5's only contributions to the article space come from stalking a couple of editors and his choice of stalking aims and edits is entirely based on his xenophobic views, as he recently expressed in this edit where he addressed the editors who happen who disagree with him on images copyright status with an uspeakable xenophobic and racist tirade picking up on the ethnic issues:

Feel free to pirate images with false tags and dubious rationales at your own "Russopedia", whenever you create one. This is a western project, and inherently respectful of copyright laws. Truthseeker 85.5 00:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, user:Lupo, who received this kind of "support" from this fellow chose not to dismiss such "help" either. --Irpen 17:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Irpen that a block for three days is too soft (he has made longer breaks in his edits). I am going to block him for a month for stalking Ghirlandajo and Irpen in the past couple months. The recent edits were just a part of it, but this time it got out of control. Usually the stalking was done in the article namespace over some minor details and one could argue it helped to NPOV the articles, but spitting out hatred on talk pages, already troubled with conflicts, is too much. Of course, not mentioning some insulting edit summaries. I hope one month will give enough time to reconsider behaviour. Renata 17:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As the original blocker, I would endorse a longer block if the community agress on it. I only blocked for three days because it was the user's first block, and there wasn't community consensus for anything longer. The user had seemingly violated a buffet of Wikipedia policies, but didn't press his luck with any particular offense. Since there were not warnings for having either posted multiple personal attacks, multiply blanked his talk page, etc., I decided a short block would be appropriate. However, if there is community consensus to block for a longer period of time, I do not contest it. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 18:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a long story about this user. At first he was a dinamic IP wikistalking a couple of editors, but then somehow was convinced to get an account. He continued stalking but since the "stallkees" knew who they are dealing with they did not bother with formal warnings or reports. His main offense is not blanking or removing warnings from talk pages, but stalking. He made those comments on talk pages that were reported here because he followed contributions of one particular editor and rigoriously opposed whatever he had to say. Renata 21:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't let's confuse the issue with the supposed but non-existent crime of "multiply blanked his talkpage" (compare "Continuous talk page blanking" below)... That said, a block for a month for stalking and harassment is just fine by me. That's serious stuff. Next stop indefinite. Bishonen | talk 02:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC).

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

Unproductive user, refuses multiple requests to be reasonable. After I protected s/his talkpage after a dozen blankings, s/he decided to go blank mine. Asking for an indef block on this user. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This user clearly isn't going to edit productively (at least on that account), especially after this. Infef'd. -- Steel 15:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

This admin used totally unnecessary offensive wording in this edit summary [30] "As much as I hate those limey bastard". I would certainly have expected that someone would be blocked if they stated "as much as I hate those Jew bastard" in an edit summary so I assume similar action will be taken here. Arniep 15:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm British, and I'm not offended. Let's all move on and not worry about minor things like this. -- Steel 15:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you're not offended. If everyone is allowed to use those kind of racial slurs Wikipedia will become an even more unpleasant place than it already is. You are in effect saying that it would be OK to say "as much as I hate those kike bastards" or "as much as I hate those nigger bastards" in edit summaries. Arniep 15:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You really ought to provide the full context for the quote. The full wording was As much as I hate those limey bastard we must give precdence to whatever variant was written first on a case by case basis, and it was a reversion of an anon's edit which changed the spelling of an article from British English to American. Note also that – unlike the words kike or nigger – it is actually possible to use the word limey in friendly (albeit very informal) conversation. WP:AN/I is not the political correctness police, and the usage in this context was obviously not meant to be offensive or derogatory. Please find something worthwhile to worry about. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry this is not about political correctness it is about people and races being treated equally. Yes the word nigger may sometimes be used among black people themselves as a joke- but I doubt if the phrase "nigger bastard" was used it would be taken merely as a "joke". Arniep 16:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose you asked Moshe nicely first, did you? Thatcher131 16:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I should point out that User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg is not an admin. --W.marsh 17:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. "Limey" corresponds to "kike" now? Arniep, if there is any substance at all to your concern for not making wikipedia "an even more unpleasant place than it already is", I respectfully request you to not post unpleasant rubbish. Bishonen | talk 02:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC).

Arniep, WP:AGF. This is not the first time (links per request) you are trying to do this same nasty trick: reporting another editor behind his back, without inquiring what he meant to say. Please grow yourself bloody sense of humor and don't waste other's time. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not something we should simply sweep under the rug - when someone says something like "as much as I hate the $epithet bastard", it's something that people can reasonably assume is meant to offend. There are limits to AGF, and this goes clearly beyond them. If it's a joke, it goes way too far and should not be repeated. If it's not a joke, it's a moment of rather poor judgement and should again not be repeated. It's appropriate that Arniep bring it up (although perhaps this isn't the right place) - we should not have this kind of behaviour in our community. --Improv 12:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

More plagiarism

Note that Daniel Brandt is still adding to his plagiarism report. These are the most recent articles: Henri Pitot, William Coddington, Thomas Gisborne, Cuno Amiet, Meredith Miles Marmaduke, Thomas Willis, Herbert Stothart, Julia Tutwiler, Édouard Vuillard, James Tait, August Zaleski, Anna Magdalena Bach, John Skene, Albert Thomas, Mary Church Terrell and Charles Young. Please help sorting this out. Haukur 15:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Something I haven't understood since the start of Brandt's plagiarism project: why not just post everything he finds on Wikipedia:Copyright problems? There are a number of editors constantly reviewing that page. I got involved there myself on what turned out to be a silly mixup about the Steven Millhauser article.

Every month the WP copyright problems page finds far more examples than Brandt ever has. So why not just put his examples on the same page with everybody else's, so they can be dealt with accordingly? Casey Abell 17:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, wherever. But that page is still a bit top-heavy. Haukur 21:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, with the introduction of G12 as a speedy criterion, things like this don't really need to go to WP:CP anymore (not much does, really). People just need to be made aware of them to deal with them. --Robth^Talk 17:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(edcon)Brandt doesn't much like us, I'm afraid. The purpose of his project is not to assist Wikipedia, but to advance the theory that Wikipedia is a massive infringer of copyright and a massive hive of plagiarism. My suspicion is that if and when we fix any instances of plagiarism or copyright violation (the two shouldn't be confused--neither is a subset of the other, and only one is illegal, though the other is certainly unethical and shouldn't be tolerated on Wikipedia), he may well claim that our doing so is "misconduct" and/or "destroying evidence". Brandt's understanding of the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA is a bit suspect; that's entirely the point. When copyvios are discovered (by the rights holder or anyone), they are removed. Which is how the law is supposed to work.

Brandt seems to think that the safe harbor might not be as safe if a) particular copyvios persist for a long time, or b) if the number of occurrences exceeds a given threshold. There is AFAIK no case law to support either conclusion. a) might hold if agents of Wikipedia (however that is defined) were to know about a copyvio for a long time and do nothing, however Wikipedia is fairly agressive about dealing with copyvios. An interesting legal question is who exactly are "agents" of Wikipedia--Brandt feels that any administrator is an "agent".

--EngineerScotty 17:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on WP, but putting Brandt's examples on the copyvio page (at least when a speedy is not immediately indicated) seems like the best defense to a charge that WP doesn't care about plagiarism. We could make the case that we did everything possible to handle his examples, by using the mechanisms we've already set up and which have successfully dealt with many other examples. As for supposedly "destroying evidence", anything deleted can be successfully restored, so nothing is really getting destroyed in the first place. Casey Abell 18:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the speedy deletion criterion, the mechanism we have set up is to delete them immediately unless it is uncertain, or where there is something salvageable in the page history that should be retained. —Centrx→talk • 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Brandt hates us, but we can put the energy he puts into his anti-Wikipedia campaign to good use. It's a little like the way in aikido you use your opponent's energy for your own purposes. I think there's a quotation by Morihei Ueshiba on the matter. We can put his list to good use. (I'm still struggling to find what's plagiarised in Anna Magdalena Bach, though.) Antandrus (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That's because I've removed it already. One paragraph, present from the initial revision, went practically unchanged up until my edit, with other, presumably legitimate, material being added around it. This puts us in sort of a catch-22. If we delete the article and only restore the lone non-copyvio revision, it would create the appearance that I wrote the entire article myself. And that, my friends would be plagiarism in itself, not to mention gross exaggeration of my writing abilities. —freak(talk) 19:13, Oct. 26, 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I figured it out just as you posted this (but I had to go to Brandt's site to find it). I can add something unplagiarised in place of the deleted material. Antandrus (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That might be particularly helpful, as I know nothing about the topic. —freak(talk) 19:49, Oct. 26, 2006 (UTC)

Not that it matters a heck of a lot, but Brandt is wrong about the copyvio source. The website that Anna Magdalena Bach's entry was partially copied from is itself pillaged from the 1980 20 volume New Grove Dictionary; I just found the entire passage in my hard copy, with minor variations, in the J.S. Bach article. Antandrus (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

EngineerScotty got one thing right. I do indeed believe that administrators are "agents" of the Wikimedia Foundation. As such, their failure to respond to copyright violations could result in action by the copyright holder against Wikimedia Foundation. Now then, the entire point of my plagiarism page was to investigate a sample of Wikipedia articles. I downloaded 16,750 articles from the listings at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dsp13 These happen to be a subset of biographies in Wikipedia of people born before 1890. It looks like these are about 32 percent of all the articles Wikipedia has that fit this description. I tried to process these articles in an effort to find plagiarism. The upshot is that I was able to do one or more Google searches for 12,095 of these articles. The rest weren't googleable because my software couldn't extract sentences that looked like they would work in Google.

Of these 12,095 articles, Google came up with at least one non-Wikipedia URL for 5,867 of the files. Some of these 12,095 files had several URLs that hit on several sentences in the article. Since I asked Google to exclude all pages with either the word "wikipedia" or "wiki" on them, these URLs tended to be either scraper sites that did not credit Wikipedia on the page, or possibly a site that existed prior to the Wikipedia article. I was looking for the latter.

To separate these two types of sites, I extracted all the URLs and sorted them by domain. Then I looked briefly at each domain. I came up with a list of 965 domains that looked like they scraped from Wikipedia. Using this list, I back-purged the data from Google, and eliminated any files where all the URLs found by Google came from a scraper. This left me with 1,682 files.

I compared these 1,682 Wikipedia articles with the suspicious URL, side by side. Most of them turned out to be from public domain material, and there was an attribution. (If I knew this before I started, my software could have looked for phrases such as "1911 Britannica" and eliminated that article immediately.) Some of them turned out to be scrapers that I didn't catch when I compiled the list of 962 domains. Others had only a sentence that may have been scraped. Others were marginal for other reasons -- the site had no copyright notice anywhere, or it was a blogger, or a forum, or someone trying to sell something such as artwork, a tour package, or music CDs. I rejected the marginal URLs. In the end, I had 150 examples of an article from Wikipedia in which some portions of the content appeared to come from an external URL that existed prior to the Wikipedia article. Most of these had bylines or copyright notices. Some were public domain sites, but there was no attribution on the Wikipedia article. That may not be illegal, but it's plagiarism. This is a plagiarism project, after all. I'm matching sentences, and the copyright notices are just another clue as to which content existed first. I'm not looking for copyright violations.

Then I went through the 150 and manually highlighted the plagiarized content. During this process, I discovered another 8 that were scraped from Wikipedia -- a some of these were second-generation scrapes that were harder to identify. I ended up with 142 articles.

The whole point of the exercise can be summed up in one sentence: I looked at about one percent of all English-language Wikipedia articles, and I found that one percent of these contained plagiarism. If you take 142 times 99, then that leaves 14,058 articles that probably contain plagiarism. I'm not going to look for these. It's not my problem.

Given that the agents of Wikimedia Foundation have now been notified that there is a systemic problem with plagiarism in Wikipedia, they have a duty to initiate, to the best of their ability, programs and procedures to identify the 14,058 articles that I did not try to identify. My sampling is the equivalent of a notice that there is most likely about 99 times more of a problem on Wikipedia, than the problems that have already been found from the titles I've identified on my site. Now Wikimedia Foundation and its agents should go out and find them. It's your fault that they are there, because adequate screening has never been in place. That's the conclusion that should be drawn from my plagiarism project. -- Daniel Brandt 68.91.88.245 23:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Although you'll probably be blocked rather quickly, being banned here :)... we seem to be doing exactly that. Your argument seems to be that Wikipedia, in order to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, has an absolute and affirmative duty to actively hunt down and remove every possible copyvio (I'll ignore plagiarism for now, as many forms of plagiarism are not illegal); and that such efforts must be 100% effective. However, the DMCA doesn't say that--to qualify for the safe harbor, a website operator need only remove infringing material upon notification. Wikipedia does this, far more aggressively than most website operators. In addition, we must not actively seek to profit from them (certain peer-to-peer networks, for instance, traffic in almost nothing but copyrighted works, and benefit financially from their presence, and have been held liable for copyright infringement); as Wikipedia is a non-profit entity, we meet that criteria by definition. (There are interesting comments by some concerning Google's buyout of YouTube, and whether or not Google's style of targeted ads might evict a Google/YouTube combo from the safe harbor; this doesn't apply to Wikipedia as we don't accept any advertising). Your analysis reveals that of our 1.4 million articles or so, 99% are likely infringement-free; obviously Wikipedia has substantial non-infringing uses. We should chase down the remaining 1%, I agree; however, Wikipedia appears to far exceed our duty under the law. Of course, I'm not a lawyer--but then again, Daniel, neither are you.--EngineerScotty 23:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Is that still assuming that a court would accept Wikipedia as a service provider rather than a publisher? Or doesn't it make any difference? Some other things - Wikipedia is a bit unusual in that it actively encourages and enables third parties to copy its content. Thus a copyvio hosted here can spawn many copies all over the web. When something gets plagiarized from, say, Britannica, the Wikipedia entry will typically get a higher Google rank than the original page and be widely mirrored - suppressing the original work into obscurity. I noticed this with the half a dozen copyvios from them which I deleted today. Britannica could argue that this is highly damaging for them (and we probably have hundreds of copyvios from them). It's a bit counterintuitive that Brad Patrick can say: "Not our fault - it was user X who did it. We'd give you his IP but our records don't go that far back. So no-one can be held responsible." If we really do far exceed our duty under the law then it seems to me that the law is very kind to us. Haukur 23:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• The '1% have copyvios' conclusion seems implausible to me. Daniel's test found that 1% (actually, 142 / 16,750 = 0.85%) of the articles he tested had plagiarism (not necessarily copyright violations)... but he tested articles on people born before 1890. Surely that subset is both more prone to copying and less likely to be extensively reviewed to catch / clean-up copyvios. You aren't likely to find alot of encyclopedia articles on Britney Spears to copy from and people are more likely to know about the subject and write their own text anyway... and even if something were copied more people are going to be looking at 'recent history' articles like that and be more likely to recognize the text as coming from another source they have seen. Granted, articles on pre-1900 history and other topics may be just as susceptible to overlooked copyvios as 'pre-1890 people', but the whole of Wikipedia is not. I'd guess that 0.5% or ~7000 articles is probably closer to reality. Still an issue which we should look for ways to address, but hardly "systemic". Indeed, it is less prevalent than I assumed it was prior to this. --CBD 12:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are also other factors to consider. Brandt's 0.85% figure is just for plagiarism he was able to fairly definitely identify using a particular methodology. It will only pick up articles which were plagiarized from web sources which are still online. It will not even pick up all of those and it seems Brandt threw out some possible examples he wasn't really sure about but might well have been problematic as well. So this figure does not include articles with text plagiarized from web sources no longer online nor from printed works. Also note that Brandt only checked three sentences from each article and only checked for exact matches on Google. This means that a part of an article can well have been plagiarized but Brandt's bot might miss it because he didn't happen to choose the right sentences. Or someone might have made minor changes to the text, enough to make a direct Google search fail but not enough to eliminate the plagiarism problem. And I'm not convinced that 'pre-1890 people' is a field especially sensitive to plagiarism, the Spears example is not very apt. In sum I think Brandt's estimate that 1% of Wikipedia's articles contain plagiarism is a very conservative one. My estimate would be 2-3%. Haukur 13:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• IANAL and stuff, but it seems that Wikipedia's designated agent (as of this writing) is Jimbo himself. As such, it seems that Mr. Brandt's assumption is wrong in this respect. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Brandt's view is that by enabling us to delete articles, block people from editing etc. the Foundation has designated us as their agents in the legal sense. Jimbo et al. disagree. I don't have an informed opinion on who's right. Haukur 14:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The word "agent" is overloaded here. One meaning is "designated agent" as defined as DMCA; that person is presently Jimbo. Nobody else. The other meaning of agent is as follows; Agent is occasionally used as legalspeak as a person whose actions may legally represent an organization--in this particular case, the suggestion being that the WFM is liable for the actions of each and every administrator. (What about wikis where there is no admin class--and anyone can alter content as they please? Are all users "agents")? Such an interpretation would make operation of a wiki legally problematic--not just Wikipedia, but any wiki. There is scant case law on the subject of wikis. The WFM could argue, that only those employed by it are "agents"--volunteer editors, regardless of how many bits they have--cannot be and should not be construed as agents. You might ask User:Brad Patrick what he thinks--he's our lawyer, after all, and I'm sure he has done research on this subject. And unlike Brandt, BP has Wikipedia's best interests at heart. --EngineerScotty 20:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I already know what he thinks - we discussed it here Also note the legal opinion at wikipedia-watch.org/sec230.pdf which suggests that the line dividing agents from non-agents could lie through the sysop bit. Haukur 22:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jimmy is the "designated agent" for DMCA. That only means the Wikimedia Foundation filled out a form and enclosed $30. It means little else, according to http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/

"The fact that the Office has accepted a designation of an agent and has included it in the Office’s directory of agents should not be construed as a judgment by the Office that the designation is sufficient or error-free."

"Definition: For purposes of section 512(c), a "service provider" is defined as a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, including an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received."

Look at that last phrase. Administrators spend all day long modifying material. They block users, ban users, protect articles, unprotect articles, and delete articles. Look at all the deletions they just did on the plagiarism articles. That means that Wikimedia Foundation is not a service provider but rather a publisher. The DMCA doesn't even apply here. The Foundation owns the servers, controls the software on those servers through employees, and is ultimately responsible for designating administrators. These administrators are expected to go out and modify content. They tweak, they delete, they revert, and they run bots to do it when they cannot do it fast enough. The Foundation is not a "service provider" under the DMCA's definition. Therefore, they should be doing the prior screening that any publisher is expected to do. 68.90.178.184 00:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but your statement "These administrators are expected to go out and modify content" seems to be a fundamental point of error on your part. ALL editors "go out and modify content," whether or not they are administrators. That's a fundamental function of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, as an organization, makes every effort to prevent plagiarism and copyright violations before it happens. Wikipedia has a policy of removing plagiarism and copyvio on site, and the administrators (and those editors who comply with said policy) not only make every effort to abide by that policy, but many of them actively seek out examples of such postings. Not only that, but editors who post material in violation of that policy are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including temporary or permanent revocation of their editing priveledges.

Frankly, Mr. Brandt, no program is going to be perfect, but we're doing pretty well. And if our efforts are not good enough to satisfy you, then I humbly invite you to start up your own open content encyclopedia and implement the anti-plagiarism and anti-copyvio policies that suit you. We will continue to do the best we can--and in light of our continuing efforts, frankly, your complaints don't matter a fart in a windstorm. Justin Eiler 01:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by User:Heqwm

Heqwm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently attempting to push his POV at Boy Scouts of America and related articles. Much discussion has occured at that article's Talk page and also on Heqwm's talk page and is still visible.

Heqwm himself filed a mediation cabal case, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-08 BSA. Several editors have responded to that cabal case and documented Heqwm's problematic behavior. 10 days ago, a moderator said he would accept the case, but wanted to make sure he was acceptable to the parties since he has belonged to the BSA. Heqwm has continued to edit the articles [31] and the mediation cabal case[32] during this time, yet he did not reply to the question of whether he would accept the moderator. Today, after the moderator stated that he would take the case, since there has been no objection, Heqwm has objected.[33] This is clearly a stall tactic.

Meanwhile, he continues to be disruptive at the articles. For instance, he made this massive deletion today removing multiple sourced statements with the spurious edit sumarry "Removed unsourced claims". This has gone on long enough as he is consuming time and harming the project.

I believe that he should be blocked under WP:Civility and Wikipedia is not a battleground. I have also documented what I believe to be a personal attack against me in that Heqwm repeatedly accused me of lying even after I provided diffs to back up my statements. Johntex\^talk 16:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the situation in detail, but the massive deletion seems to be well justified, if perhaps not in the best of style. You cannot use documents published by an organization directly as sources about the organization. You need to find reliable neutral sources for your statements. --Stephan Schulz 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the policy at reliable sources says "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote it, ..." We often use information provided directly from the source. For example, sales figures of companies, quotes from the subject of a biography, etc... Deletion of that material was absolutely not justified. If the user felt this sourced informaiton was inappropriate, he should have discussed it. Instead, he continues his pattern of disruption and incivility. Johntex\^talk 18:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the article in whole. Self-published sources should only be used "when not contentious; not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;", also note "Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias." (and should be used with caution only). Your examples are very different from the case at hand: Quotes are properly attributed. If you write "according to the BSA, they do...", you can use them as a source. For the absolute statement "The BSA does ..." this is not a good source. Performance data for notable companies is typically audited by a professional auditor, and people who misrepresent them can go to jail. As such, they have a certain level of review and are more reliable than pure fluff and marketing materials.--Stephan Schulz 20:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but even if we conclude additional sources should be added, that does not excuse the behavior of this user, who does not bother raising these types of arguments at all. He is simply making deletions. And he is doing this in the face of his own supposed attempt to bring in a mediator. He needs to recieve a block and/or a stern warning against this sort of behavior. I can't do it because I'm a party to the mediation case - if it ever moves forward. Johntex\^talk 21:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I don't comment on the overall behaviour, having no detailed knowledge about the case. If you cannot get mediation to work, the next step would be an RfC. However, also assume good faith. Not every editor is online all the time, so delayed responses are to be expected. --Stephan Schulz 21:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with assume good faith but no policy says that we have to have blind faith. The fact that the user editted during the meantime, *especially* since he editted the actual cabal case, is sufficient evidence that they were on Wikipedia. Johntex\^talk 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment To quote you, I don't know the situation in detail, you need to look at the whole history before commenting on it. Heqwm has clearly being intentionally disruptive and the mediation records, article history, and talk document this. This needs to be stopped now, not months from now. Rlevse 21:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking around a bit, User:Heqwm has 62 edits in 3 weeks, about half of them on talk or on the mediation page. How disruptive can 28 name space edits (slightly more than 1/day) be? I fail to see the urgency.--Stephan Schulz 21:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The urgency is that valuable contributors have been assuming good faith by trying to steer him in the right direction, reply to his mediation cabal case, etc. He takes one minute of his time to delete something, and then other people have to waste tens of minutes or more. Also, his behavior goes back much farther than 3 weeks. There was a lull where he was inactive, but this has been going on for months. It is likely (though unproven) that he was doing this sort of thing as an IP even before creating an account. Johntex\^talk 21:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

His first edit to the BSA article is on September 25th. "Much longer" than three weeks? And his first ever edit is from September 14th...how many "months" (plural) does that make? --Stephan Schulz 22:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Because they're almost all on the BSA article and the same edit/revert/edit/revert. He is being disruptive and doing it to make a point. He seems to refuse to accept the mediation cabal though he himself requested it, which shows unwillingness to compromise and clear POV. This history of disruptive editing, towit: Misleading edit summaries - removing content for lack of citation, when the content removed includes a valid citation, adding tags for cites directly on a valid ref--http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America&diff=prev&oldid=82952665, continued warring on a A-class article without working toward consensus (note no one else has supported him). Evidence that BSA editors are not censoring, is that we have a FA on BSA membership controversies that was and is worked with BSA and non-BSA editors. Rlevse 21:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your example of a "valid cite", it isn't. Not only is it a link to the BSA itself, hence not a good source as stated above, it also does not support the sentence it is attached to. Again, I very much think that Heqwm should work much more cooperatively, but I do not find serious problems with the substance of his edits.--Stephan Schulz 22:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment by the puppy: I'm feeling rouge-ish. He's wasted enough of other editors' time. Block him for a month with a recommended reading list of policies, and when the month is up if he has read them and abides by them, fine. If not, community ban. I would also support a community ban if those who have attempted working with him feel he is beyond redemption. If he won't even work through a mediation case there is little hope of Rfar being anything but a waste of time for the very busy members of Arbcom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternative view by admin: I have reviewed this "case" in detail. The "massive deletion" is part of a pattern of WP:POINT edits by User:Heqwm. Misleading edit summaries are part of the pattern — "Deleted unsourced claims" as the reason for removing a section of the article (that is cited) that he does not like is misleading. The citations clearly reference the topic; though it is possible that a slight rewording of the section, such as "according to the BSA mission statement", could be made. On the same vein, Heqwm has put {{fact}} tags immediately following a cited sentence in the article. After filing a Mediation Cabal case, he has shown an unwillingness participate. While the editing has been on and off, it is disruptive. — ERcheck (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn, that looks so official. Wonder if I should have started with Alt view by admin in boldface, instead of Comment by puppy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by puppy is nice way to lighten the mood ;-) — ERcheck (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Which helps when I'm saying "Ban the trolls!" heh. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Heqwm strikes me as a candidate for Wikipedia:Community probation per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing or a 1 month block. FeloniousMonk 22:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of Wikipedia:Community probation per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Would there be support here for putting him on probation from editting BSA-related articles for a period of one month or until the mediation cabal case comes to some mutually agreeable conclusion, whichever is sooner? Johntex\^talk 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. --InShaneee 00:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How/when would this be implemented? Rlevse 09:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Implimented. --InShaneee 14:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment note community block implemented by InShaneee. Rlevse 17:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Coulda swore I just said that. :) --InShaneee 13:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

From the medcab case it certainly looks like Heqwm has an axe to grind, rather than an interest in neutral editing. Let him work his issues out in mediation first, if he can. Thatcher131 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is he's not making any attempt at compromise (like not objecting when the mediator asked if he had one and then objected after he accepted it) and this needs resolved now! Rlevse 09:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RFC rules

I've tried to explain how things work at RFC to User:Black Flag, but I've been met with . . . well, stubborn resistance. Take this and this, for example. I don't know what else to do about it other than mention it here. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've reverted back to your version with, I hope. a helpful edit summary.[34] I don't know what else to do either; perhaps a bit of a mass effect might do it. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

I had respectfully requested that Jersyko not blank my RFC comment. He continued to blank, actions which I deem inappropriate. Furthermore, when I left remarks on his talk page, he blanked those as well, actions which I understood to be likewise inappropriate.--Black Flag 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Bishonen. I believe your edits are fair, and that is all I and others ask. Respectfully, --Black Flag 20:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The "remarks" left on my talk page warned me of "vandalism" and 3RR (which I did not violate). Keeping Rfc in line with the rules at the top of the page is hardly "vandalism", yet I kept that comment on my talk page. I did remove the big, ugly 3RR stop hand, though. And I'm glad you agree that Bishonen's edit, which was identical to my own, is fair. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio edits by me

I have received several messages that in the first months of my editing wikipedia (early 2004), I violated the copyrights of others on Cuno Amiet (now deleted for copyright reasons), Edvard Munch and Edouard Vuillard. I will manually go through all my edits, to see if I have done this in other articles. If any of you come across such edits before I've found them, please let me know. I deeply apologize for this. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I applaud you for taking the initative to go through all your contribs for this. ~crazytales56297 ^{O rly?} 03:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

68.39.174.238 21:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of personal information

I have reverted the personal information posted here and warned the IP user posting it. I'm still getting a handle on the admin tools. Can I delete this edit myself, or do I in fact need an Oversight to do it? Thanks, Irongargoyle 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to do it for you twice, but it kept undeleting all edits, including the personal information. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Turns out that the second undeletion was succesful :) You can remove personal information yourself. First you delete the entire article, then you go to the page history that only admins can see (at Special:Undelete). On the top is the deletion log, on the bottom the edits to the article. Tick the boxes beside the good edits, and leave the edits with the personal information unticked. That restores/undeletes all the proper edits, but keeps the personal information removed. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also some Javascript that will check all and then you can uncheck the ones to not restore. —Centrx→talk • 00:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Block for removing warnings

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus that one should not remove warnings (cf. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings). On that basis, I believe that User:Mets501's block of User:Jooler for removal of warnings is clearly incorrect. In addition, this is based on Mets's close of an RM at yoghurt in which he threw out 5 votes for flawed logic, simply ignored another 5 votes, and declared that there was a 7-4 majority in favour of the move. (He also move-protected the page after making his "decision" and left the message "Please do not come to my user talk page with long monologues; I will not change my opinion if you write to me").

On this basis, Jooler's action (undoing a move based on a fatally flawed RM close) is correct, Mets' warning to Jooler is incorrect, and Mets' block of Jooler for removing the warning is clearly unacceptable. Guettarda 00:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree on the undoing and blocking - both unaccptable. What exactly did Mets warn about? – Chacor 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to get the view from Mets, was the block for removing the warnings or for disruption by reverting the move? If it was for reverting the move, fair enough (although he'd of course need a warning, so if that was what the warning is then I agree with it), but for removing warnings, no. – Chacor 00:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The block was originally for changing national varieties of English on all articles that linked to Yoghurt (or is it at Yogurt now?) despite a final warning and previous informal warnings. I extended the block when the warnings were continually removed from the users talk page. This block had nothing to do with his moving the Yoghurt page and our difference of opinion as to the location of the page. —Mets501 (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with the block. There has never been any consensus to block for removing warnings, you should have asked the user to archive them, or even do so yourself. – Chacor 00:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mets' moved the page against consensus - he simply ignored a substantial block of votes. He made it clear that he was not willing to discuss the matter, so there was no reason to talk to him personally about undoing his mistake. He has no right to threaten people for fixing his mistakes. His rationale for the warning was flawed - it was Mets who moved against consensus. Guettarda 00:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, hold up, Mets was involved in the dispute and issued the block? Can you spell "conflict of interest"? This should have been posted on AN/I first and someone else should have issued a block if merited. Both his actions and Jooler's should have been examined. •Jim62sch• 00:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is nuts. Perhaps I'm feeling a little bellicose, but why is this "removing warnings" thing continuing to plague Wikipedia? If a user removes a warning, then he has clearly indicated that he has seen the warning. If he then continues to behave in the way for which he was warned, further action is warranted. As far as I can see, that's the end of the story. How did we come to take such minutiae so seriously that some admins think it is OK to block people for removing warnings? –Joke 00:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, Guettarda "forgot" to mention that I "threw out" 5 votes supporting the move as well. My personal opinion was not involved in closing the page move. Please read Talk:Yoghurt for more information. —Mets501 (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So in other words you ignored the consensus-building process? •Jim62sch• 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, quite the contrary. I attempted to enhance the process by analyzing the discussion, and the rationales behind each vote, instead of just saying 55.2424232324252% majority so this side wins. —Mets501 (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to take a look at the consensus process. •Jim62sch• 00:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue isn't the votes thrown out (although I disagree with that), it was the fact that he simply ignored votes (votes which met his criterion for "approval". Guettarda 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not "ignore" the votes. I read every single vote and all the discussion, and the votes that Yoghurt votes that you claim I "ignored" were all based on the incorrect assumption that the first version of the article was at Yoghurt. I could of done the opposite: since it was clear all of those people just wanted the first name of the article I could have changed their votes to votes for Yogurt! —Mets501 (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked. If consensus here is to re-block I will not unblock again, but it seems to me that this block is clearly flawed. Guettarda 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And I repeat: the original block was NOT for removing warnings. It was for changing national varieties of English on ALL PAGES that linked to Yoghurt. —Mets501 (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, chill out. Mets apparently made a mistake here, we admins all do it. So deal with it and stop jumping down his throat about it. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Then have the mistakes been undone? – Chacor 00:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you'll read above, yes I believe so. If not we are fixing pronto. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mets has made several mistakes, and he has refused to change his behaviour when the mistakes were pointed out. I warned him half an hour before I brought the matter here. I think this one should never have gotten past RFA. Guettarda 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you believe so, then I would suggest making use of Mets' willingness to sign up for Category:Administrators open to recall and initiate that process with him. -- nae'blis 15:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why a block based on changing national varieties of English repeatedly despite warnings is "a mistake"? Perhaps I'm missing the point. —Mets501 (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Your close of the RM, your move of the page against consensus, your move-protection of the page, your issue of warnings for correcting your page move, your block for a non-existent offense, your protection of Jooler's user page after you blocked him/her (making him/her unable to contest your improper block), and your refusal to undo your block over the course of half an hour after I told you the block was improper can all be characterised as "mistakes" (if someone chooses to stretch WP:AGF almost to the breaking point). It could also be characterised as abuse of your admin privileges. Guettarda 00:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

At minimum, Mets should not have made the block as an involved admin. (I think This entire Yogurt/Yoghurt/Yoghbadslhdfbkuurrrrt disagreement is really getting to be ridiculous but that's a separate issue). I would support unblocking. JoshuaZ 00:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur with Guettarda here, blocking then protecting the talk page of a user with whom you were involved in a dispute is beyond the pale, and there is no consensus that removing warnings from a talk page is a blockable offense in any case. Your summary of blocked and still trying to remove warnings from user talk page as why you blocked makes it clear that was the reason for the last block. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

After Mets moved yoghurt out of process I moved it back [35] - Mets then put a personal attack on my page Can't you read? I removed his insulting words (there were no warnings at this point) and he kept putting them back - [36] - I have to admit to misunderstand what he asked me to do. He was talking about double redirects but I thought he said fix the redirects (it's late at night) - which is what I was doing and got me into trouble - I did fix the double redirects when I realised though. Met did not attempt civil discussion before getting my goat up. Jooler 01:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I did make a few mistakes in the process. Let's forget this and move on (this is not an attempt to cover up for my possible mistakes, but an attempt to remove possible future grudges). This does not need to be discussed further. —Mets501 (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, this editor clearly needs some sort of mentorship, or at least some sort of commitment to familiarise himself/herself with policy before he uses any additional admin priviledges. Guettarda 01:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC) And, obviously, an apology to Jooler. Guettarda 01:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And now Jonathunder has abusively reblocked, without bothering to chime in here. Guettarda 01:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A discussion of the name of yogurt/yoghurt is ongoing, and both sides have requested the article not be moved during that, as it makes the survey of whether to support or oppose exceedingly confusing. Jooler was aware of that and yet moved the page anyway. This is disruptive. I have restored his block. Jonathunder 01:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems we should have an admin training course that needs to be taken before the RFA. Jonathunder, there really was no reason for reblocking, especially before talking about it here. Additionally, if you felt the need to reblock for what appear to be questionable reasons, you should have blocked both in order to be fair. •Jim62sch• 10:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Jooler was aware of that" - was not Jooler 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Your characterisation of "disruptive" is disputable - clearly Mets move against consensus was disruptiuve. Your block without any prior warning for an article dispute is a clear abuse of priviledge. Jooler 02:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No more Wheel warring you two. Discuss this before disrupting this poor users block log anymore. semper fi — Moe 02:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Jumping to a conclusion in the middle of a discussion doesn't do anyone any good. --InShaneee 02:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Moe. One more thing: maybe it is more constructive to actually voice your concerns regarding the name rather than engaging in personal ax-grinding. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be somewhat useful to discuss it without making it a witchunt too (per the previous section). Bad blood is all well and good, but comments such as "...should never have got past RFA" can only be destructive. Mets501 has admitted a mistake, and und Understands why - that's all that really needs to be said, surely?

However, as Jooler now knows of this discussion and the agreement not to move the article, surely now would be a good time to move it back to where it was at the beginning of the discussion/vote and protect the page untill the debate is over to ensure it isn't moved until then, rather than swap everybodies votes and comments around?--Crimsone 02:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mets' admission came well after the comment, and only after numerous editors pointed out his mistake rather forcefully. •Jim62sch• 10:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

True, we shouldn't be witchhunting any admin right now, it's only going to make it worse. Move protecting the page may not be needed right now since all parties have agreed to stop moving it until the discussion is over (but I'm not against it). semper fi — Moe 02:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has named the article "Yog(h)urt" (with parentheses in title) just to please everyone (or no one). --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Probably not :) --Crimsone 02:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol, no. Probably not the best idea to make a third possible move location, it might confuse too many people. :) semper fi — Moe 02:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is normally stable at yoghurt - moving away from this and then discussion from that point on is effecting a 'fait accompli' and very much against the spririt of Wikipedia in my opinion. Jooler 02:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The article at this point belongs wherever it was at the start of the discussion/vote. Moving it now is disruptive, and against a consensus agreement from both sides to leave be untill the discussion is completed. Your opinion does not overide consensus - nor does it override the need to minimise disruption and confusion over the vote. The spirit of wikipedia is fundamentally that of being constructive in the day to day work of building an encyclopedia. Anything that is disruptive, such as movine an article during an ongoing vote where both sides have agreed not to do so, is very much the anti-thesis of the wikipedia spirit. --Crimsone 03:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Your opinion does not overide consensus" - and the consensus over the last 3 or 4 votes to move that page has been that it should staty as yoghurt. I moved an article that had been moved out of process against consensus after a dodgy vote count. I was reverting an act that was very much against the spirit of Wikipedia. I was unaware of any agreement not to move the page. In any case how many people does it take to make such an agreement, Two? Three? Four? Where is it written? Jooler 04:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As your previous comment was referring to the exact same thing I was referring to, I suggest you drop it as this is not productive. You had mistaken my comment to mean the opposite of what I actually intended (which I later clarified). Consensus is that the page not be moved during a vote on whether to move or not for wuite obvious reasons. If it was at Yoghurt to start with, that's where it should stay untill the vote is over. I have no opinion on what the name itself should be. I'm interested only seeing disruption minimised. I'm not advocating your opinion on the final resuult, not am I advocating the other. I'm merely pointing out to you that even if the artcile started at yogurt (which it didn't), then your opinion alone is not grounds for causing disruption by moving it (purely because you asked the question.). Moving an article after a dodgy vote count doesn't nessecarily mean that it was against the spirit of wikipedia. It could quite simply be a mistake (as here). We're all human and we all make them from time to time. Crimsone 05:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have protected the page from further moves, which should have been done long before this, and expanded its listing on WP:LAME. Grandmasterka 10:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, Grandmaster. This page's history over the last five days isn't pretty... Daniel.Bryant 10:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Continuous talk page blanking

User talk:Webwizard09. Has blanked his talk page 8 times by now. I told him to archive it. Instead he keeps blanking it. Request a block. Regarding the background of the initial warning, see his first contribution here. I would say that qualifies as 'nonsense'. --Daniel575 | (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing? Stop and think please. Let the matter drop. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of peace I've deleted his talk page. Please don't edit it again. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What is this obsession with forcing users to archive their talkpage? It's good if they do archive it. It's their call if they don't archive it. Some admins don't archive theirs. Try to avoid an unhealthy fascination with other users' talkpages. Bishonen | talk 00:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC).

Yes, perhaps we should force User:William M. Connolley to archive his. That would be a worthwhile use of our energies. I move my talkpage to the archive pages. Am I going to get in trouble for that? –Joke 00:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, there is already a current RfC over your actions, I suggest you try not to do anything controversial like this. JoshuaZ 00:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This happens far too often. I made an update to WP:HA to spell out that it just isn't kosher. Comments / adjustments welcome, but this has always been a blockable form of harassment and way too many people don't seem to get that. --CBD 12:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent update, CBD ! Bishonen | talk 19:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC).

User:ZAPWORLD

ZAPWORLD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This may be an account created solely for spam. User contribs include twice replacing a disambiguation page with a spammy article about an electric scooter company. Natalie 00:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Gave 'em a warning, will keep an eye on this user. Grandmasterka 07:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sheepo39

Continues to vandalize pages, if an admin could step in and ban him or set him straight if he continues to act up it would be much appreciated thanks, Derktar 03:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC).

Please head on over to WP:AIV.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops sorry 'bout that, not sure where to put this, I'll go ahead and re-post it there if he starts up again, thanks again. Derktar 03:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC).

No problem. :P —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Alismatic

Please monitor this user, as I am about to sign off for tonight. S/he has been creating articles about a town (and schools) that s/he claims are real just because s/he claims to live in it. S/he is also removing AFD tags and adding speedy tags to AFD discissions associated with the articles s/he created. When I issued my warning, the response I got was a personal attack. I think this situation will only worsen, so some form of admin intervention will be needed sooner or later. Scobell302 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the user Alismatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been blocked. Last edit was the love note on your talk page. Fan-1967 04:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Mattisse

A week ago here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Puppetmaster_Mattisse_repeatedly_removing_puppetmaster_tag (and on Mattisse's talk page User_talk:Mattisse#Sockpuppet_tag) there was discussion about Mattisse removing the sockpuppet tag from her user page. It had led to a revert war over tag. Some argued that she had put it in her past so she should be allowed to take it off her talk page. But Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mattisse has confirmed that Mattisse was operating a sockpuppet, User:Xampt, just 6 days prior to her removal of the sockpuppet tag. I'm not sure what should be done about this (and since I'm not an administrator, there's not much I can do) but this appears to be the 19th sockpuppet she has operated based on Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mattisse. Metros232 10:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Moreover the other people accused of being sockpuppets especially User:Timmy12 are confirmed not to be sockpuppets. I think timmy has a good case for grievance over the way he's been treated. Mattise stated [37] that she was changing username, because of all the grief she had been receiving. User:Xampt has a total of 16 edits over a period of 3 day, none of which were vote-stacking, block avoidance or any other misdemeanor. Apart from two comments to User talk:Netsnipe the two accounts were not operated at the same time. --Salix alba (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do 'scarlet letters'. The sockpuppet tag is for users who have been indefinitely banned as abusive sockpuppets... not active participants. Neither account here was banned, and indeed as there was no apparent abuse of the dual accounts I'm not sure why a checkuser was even run. In any case, repeatedly editing another active user's page in ways they do not want you to is generally considered harassment and/or vandalism. Don't do it. --CBD 11:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Xampt part of the RFCU was added only because I didn't think it warrented its own RFCU since, as Salix alba stated, the account was never really disruptive. I just tacked it on to this fishing expedition that the rest of the RFCU appears to be since I didn't think it justified having its own RFCU. Metros232 16:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Continued defacement of the Pedro Zamora and Judd Winick articles

Semi-protection is not working with this guy. He simply removes the protection, has ignored requests to cease his behavior, refers to another editor's reverts of his vandalism as "lies", and one of his Edit Summaries was simply "Judd's a loser". Nightscream 10:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, only admins can remove protection. Removing (or adding) the tag doesn't do anything. Secondly, the Winick article sometimes goes days with no edits. Anyway, I just blocked the editors who got around SP and edited the Zamora article. If they do it again, list them here and we will block them. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Mikulas

Mikulas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just registered, and the only thing he has done so far is creation of multiple more accounts. I don't know if he needs to be blocked right now, but he should definitely be brought to the admins' attention. - Mike Rosoft 12:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

IP User: 204.69.112.254

This user has constantly been vandalizing the JetBlue page. I don't want to repeat some of the stuff he said here, but if you check the history for edits made on Oct. 27, there are quite a few. Reccomend immediate blockage from JetBlue page, thank you. - Neo16287 14:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A school IP, as is usually the case with such edits. The user has been warned, but the behaviour seems to have stopped. For now. Thanks for the notice, Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Huge mess with WP:DASH

I have a seemingly minor but thorny problem with User:Leandrod. He engages in frivolous changes of "typography" as he calls it, without bothering to explain his rationale. He moved scores of military articles, from Anglo-French War to the large series of Russo-Turkish Wars, so that en-dash would separate two parts of the war's name. This resulted in huge trails of double redirects, which nobody bothered to fix.

The latest bout of his activity happened a week ago, when he moved all Russo-Swedish Wars to his preferred spelling. When I asked him for a rationale, he went to consult WP:DASH and discovered that he was wrong about the en-dash. After I requested him to undo the damage he inflicted, he moved Russo-Swedish articles back to their original names but failed to revert his previous moves or to fix double redirects.

Leandrod told me a week ago that "he is in no leisure now" to clean up all this stuff himself, although a scrutiny of his latest edits shows that he may not be as busy as he claims. As a consequence, scores of anonymous editors have to clean up the results of his ill-informed zeal (see here or here). The most disturbing thing about all this mess is that links to some articles repeatedly moved by Leandrod went red. See Template:Russo-Swedish War Series, for instance. I don't know why this happens, as the red-linked articles actually exist.

For a full list of disrupted articles that need to be moved back to their proper titles, with subsequent clean up of double redirects, check Leandrod's move log. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Horde Zla

Hello. I have reason to believe that User:Horde Zla is a user who is trying to evade indef. block. Observe his stlye of writing at User_talk:Horde_Zla and posts by User:Hahahihihoho and his sockpuppet User:Thunderman on the Talk:Ivana Miličević and you will see that they are identical. He also continues to edit-war on the same articles as well. Oh and I wasn't sure where would this fall since he is also edit-warring so I reported him at the genral Admin noticeboard however due to my serious doubt that he is evading block I report him here too.--Factanista 15:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Factanista, thanks for the tip. I agree that that's an obvious Hahahihihoho sock--nothing to bother CheckUser with--I've blocked it. Feel free to drop a line directly on my page if you come across any more like it. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC).

No problem, will do.--Factanista 09:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User Cris Ericsson

Is a Vermont politician whop has vandalsied her own article [38] after discovering she couldnt use it to promote her politics. Her verbal attacks are crude and unnecessary. Please can an admin take a look, SqueakBox 15:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Claims to be the politician, at least. I've warned the IP, and the user appears to have stopped her attacks for the moment. --InShaneee 16:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 2 hours. (No other admin had replied when I read the request). Durova 16:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This edit summary gives her personal information, as confirmed by a google search. Should that be removed? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 16:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say no.If you can confirm it by a google search it's public not personal isn't it? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's still personal information, because it's her telephone number. Even though other sites have listed it before. Personal doesn't mean secret. My real name is personal information as well, even though it can be confirmed via google. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the phone number that you should call if you want to volunteer to lend a hand. It's listed on her website. I think it's pretty safe to assume it's not her personal phone number. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this a violation of WP:AUTO?? SunStar Net 17:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have ifdef blocked, per Wikipedia:Username and left the following comment on their talk:

Hello. It seems your Wikipedia user name resembles that of Cris Ericson, a United States Senator candidate. To prevent unfortunate cases where pranksters pretend to be someone well known, our user name policy (at Wikipedia:Username) requires that such accounts be blocked (the part where it says "Names of well-known living or recently deceased people"). We do, however, realise that some (regrettably only a very few) of such cases are infact the real person named; to that end, can I ask you to email info-en-q@wikimedia.org (mentioning this discussion at "User talk:Crisericson") from your official email address and confirm that you really are Cris Ericson, or that you're editing on their behalf. The people who handle that email list will then be able to unblock this account. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but I hope you'll understand why we need to be careful in this regard. I have also blocked User:Cris Ericson.

I'm fairly certain this is not the person they claim to be. Ta/wangi 18:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the "zombie eyes" photo from Cris Ericson due to WP:BLP concerns. Thanks/wangi 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If she were the real candidate it is unlikely she would engage in the juvenile attacks against me or trying to use wikipedia as a blatant political platform and I think it is best we assume this person is not the real Cris Ericson, SqueakBox 18:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

She's the candidate of the marijuana party. I see no particular reason why we should assume she wouldn't be juvenile. Why on earth would someone pretend to be an obscure Vermont 3rd party candidate? john k 17:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Purely on the basis of being safe rather than sorry and not assuming she would be juvenile when we might be wrong as someone may indeed be impersonating her. If it is her then she is not a credible politician, but perhaps that is the point? SqueakBox 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what they say about assuming. Whether or not it is her she is not a credible politician. I wasn't suggesting that we assume it is not her. I would even be perfectly happy with pretending that we do not believe it is her, as I think it's best policy to be better safe than sorry. I was mostly just nitpicking at the idea that it is "unlikely she would engage in...juvenile attacks" if she were who she said she was. I think that's nonsense, and I think it's much more likely that she is who she says she is - as I said before, who would bother impersonating her? Other than that, I don't think I disagree with the actual course of action taken, just with the way it was expressed. john k 19:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

John, credibility and support for legalising marijuana are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, had Cris Ericson's campaign webpage had the same photoshopped image i would not have deleted the one which was uploaded here, but it doesn't...

Should we be looking to AFD this article? /wangi 18:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody said they were. I support legalizing marijuana, and consider myself to be fairly credible, in general. But credibility and running as a third party candidate in the United States are not closely associated with one another. john k 19:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends on her notability, which not being American I couldnt comment on. No harm trying, I would have thought, SqueakBox 19:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User:SuperDuperMan

For the past month User:SuperDuperMan, who also edits under User:MookiesDad, User:Fwdixon and User:71.125.234.14, has engaged in edit warring, flagrant sockpuppetry, repeated personal attacks, removal of legitimate warning messages from his various user talk pages, placement of prank retaliatory warnings on other people’s user page, and at least one 3RR violation. This demonstrates a brazen disregard for the rules of conduct governing Wikipedia. It is unlikely that his disruptive behavior will stop unless his conduct is reviewed and appropriate action taken for these various offenses. Can anyone take a few moments to review this? Most of the activity has happened on [[39]]. Pak434 17:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Pak434 has consistently violated the 3RR rules, also edits under the sockpuppet User:Noumenes, he has insisted on posting supposition as fact on the Tom Swift page. I suspect both edit names are sock/meat puppets of User:Antaeus_Feldspar SuperDuperMan 19:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin, however...

Assuming the sock claims are true, both of you seem liable for about a week of blocking each for edit warring and 3RR. This is not acceptable Wikipedia editor behavior.

Nlu protected the article. I recommend both of you to have a civil discussion on the relatively minor points of disagreement and come to an agreement between yourselves and other interested editors on the Talk:Tom Swift page. If you keep this back and forth edit warring up after the page is unprotected both of your sets of accounts are probably going to get blocked for increasing lengths of time.

If you can't come to agreement see WP:MEDIATION.

Georgewilliamherbert 19:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish you would look more closely before assuming that both parties' claims are equally credible. There is no evidence to support the claim that Pak434 is a sockpuppet of anyone else or that anyone else is a sockpuppet of his. There is, on the other hand, evidence amounting to proof that Fwdixon is MookiesDad, 71.125.234.14, and SuperDuperMan, and very probably he is Noumenes, not Pak434. There is no truth at all to the claim that Pak434 has violated 3RR, as can be seen from the edit history of the page in question. I am frankly quite perturbed that when there is evidence of one party acting disruptively and in malicious bad faith, someone who is not an admin steps forward and pronounces an opinion based on the presumption that the party who has been operating sockpuppets to deceive the entire Wikipedia community could not possibly have also been slandering anyone who tries to expose his bad behavior. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I did look more closely. You (Anataeus Feldspar) just slipped under 3RR in 24 hrs twice in the last 4 days; Pak434 did 3 reverts in 24 hrs about a day ago.

If you intend to assert that these are sockpuppets, then say so and present evidence. Implying and failing to back it up here is wasting ANI time. If you think they're sockpuppets intended to get around 3RR then file a request for checkuser. Georgewilliamherbert 22:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Evidence that Fwdixon (talk · contribs) is 71.125.234.14 (talk · contribs) and that 71.125.234.14 is SuperDuperMan (talk · contribs): By his own admission Fwdixon edits from the IP address 71.125.234.14. In this edit 71.125.234.14 expands on comments previously left by MookiesDad, removing MookiesDad's signature in so doing and signing with his IP address. Two minutes later in this edit, SuperDuperMan replaces that signature with his own signature, taking credit for those comments.
• Evidence that Fwdixon (talk · contribs) is actually MookiesDad (talk · contribs): We already have the above, where an IP address we know to be used by Fwdixon altered and took credit for comments by MookiesDad. In addition: Fwdixon, by his own admission, is the webmaster of "The Hardy Boys Unofficial Home Page" at http://hardyboys.bobfinnan.com/ . Late on October 5th, MookiesDad edited fourteen articles about individual books in the Hardy Boys series, with the edit summary on each one "rm copyrighted material from my web site" (emphasis added). A sample of the removed material is the following removed from A Figure in Hiding: "The Hardy Boys foil the fake eye surgery "Eye Syndicate" of quack Dr. Grafton. Revision: The Hardy Boys smash the "Evil Eye" (aka "The Goggler Gang") theft ring." This is word-for-word identical to the capsule description of that book at http://hardyboys.bobfinnan.com/hbos.htm: "The Hardy Boys foil the fake eye surgery "Eye Syndicate" of quack Dr. Grafton. Revision: The Hardy Boys smash the "Evil Eye" (aka "The Goggler Gang") theft ring." Several of the other thirteen capsule reviews are also identical to the corresponding descriptions at http://hardyboys.bobfinnan.com/hbos.htm: What MookiesDad identifies as material from his website is actually from the website of Fwdixon.

I'm sorry for not presenting this evidence sooner; I had no idea that you actually wanted to see evidence, since you started off your remarks with "Assuming the sock claims are true ..." As you can see, the claims of sockpuppetry against Fwdixon/71.125.234.14/MookiesDad/SuperDuperMan are indeed backed up by evidence. By contrast, "SuperDuperMan" makes strong accusations about Pak434 and Noumenes and I all being the same person but has provided no evidence whatsoever, neither on Talk:Tom Swift nor here. The claim that Noumenes and I are the same person seems particularly ludicrous, given that to my knowledge Noumenes and I have never agreed on anything so far. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As User:Antaeus Feldspar has already pointed out, I have never, much less "consistently", been in violation of 3RR. User:SuperDuperMan’s claim that I also edit under User:Noumenes or that I am a sock/meat puppet of User:Antaeus Feldspar likewise has no basis in fact. If anything is a waste of ANI time it when someone engages in allegations like these which are manifestly untrue. This is not a defense or explanation of his behavior. It is a retaliatory claim intended to discredit his accuser now that his conduct is about to come under scrutiny by administrators who are in a position to impose a penalty for this behavior. The issue at hand is whether there is any merit to the complaint that I have lodged: that this user has engaged in flagrant sockpuppetry, repeated personal attacks, removal of legitimate warning messages from his various user talk pages, 3RR violations, etc. Evidence of sockpuppetry has now been provided by User:Antaeus Feldspar. Clear evidence of a deliberate 3RR violation by User:SuperDuperMan on 27 October exists on [[40]]. On 22 October 2006 on [[41]], this individual stated "as long as I live I will remove the See Also section that points to Edisonade or Frank Reade". Does this sound like someone who is interested in arriving at a compromise to resolve a content dispute or someone whose parochial view on an article is so entrenched that dispute resolution is impossible? The answer to this question is self evident. Does this sound like someone who is concerned about edit warring and 3RR violations or someone who has a complete disdain for the rules governing this type of conduct? Pak434 15:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Azwatchdog and other Anonymous

For the past couple days, User:Azwatchdog, as well as two other anonymous editors, User:68.230.55.156 and User:71.209.183.28, have repeatedly inserted an external link misrepresenting US Senate candidate Jim Pederson's political platform. After simply reverting several times what User:68.230.55.156 inserted, I put the BLP1 warning on the user's talk page. After that, User:71.209.183.28 inserted the same link, and, after I reverted their edit left BLP1 on their talk page, User:Azwatchdog inserted the same link, I reverted that user's edits and also left the BLP1. Since the edits of these three users are identical, they may be the same person. I'm not sure of what procedure to go through now, so any help given by an admin would be invaluable. --JMurphy 18:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Now it's just getting ridiculous. I've probably violated the 3RR just trying to stay ahead of this guy. Just take a look at the history for the page Jim Pederson. --JMurphy 18:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, personal attack, personal information by 69.250.68.49

Diffs: [42][43] [44]

69.250.68.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

An anonymous user has posted a derrogatory message with someone's personal information on the Hehe page, Slut, and Promiscuity. Whether or not the information is accurate or not, the diffs probably need to be deleted and the user handled appropriately. Neil916 (Talk) 19:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted the Hehe revision, and left note for user not to do so again. ♠PMC♠ 19:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda

I have come here basically bacause I can't do this alone. Guettarda won't leave me alone. There is already another thread about this above. I have admitted that I may have made a mistake, but for some reason Guettarda thinks that I intentionally am trying to harm Wikipedia, which is absolutely not true at all! He claims I "chose to ignore a large number of votes in order to get [my] desired result" in the Yoghurt requested move, which I have already explained is not true and have explained many times why I discounted various votes. I do not have any bias at all towards American spellings: I myself use various British spellings due to my British family history even though I live in America. And I discounted an equal number of votes for Yogurt and Yoghurt, so he cannot claim I attempted to alter the outcome. He claims I "refuse to explain why [I] simply ignored many of the other opinions" which again is not true: I wrote next to each opinion that I discounted the reason for doing so. He continues to make comments like "STOP VIOLATING WIKIPEDIA POLICY" and "This one never should have gotten past RFA". Can someone please tell him to leave me alone? —Mets501 (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Left him a message. semper fi — Moe 20:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —Mets501 (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That this keeps coming up is tiresome. You have not admitted you made a mistake. You said "perhaps [you] made a few mistakes" and admitted that you "may have made a mistake." You have not apologized and you continue to argue that it is correct to block users who remove warnings on their talkpage – something for which there is no consensus! I can't for the life of me see why this issue keeps coming up day after day on the AN/I. If you wanted to let the matter drop, you would have, rather than coming here to post yet another complaint. –Joke 00:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. To be blunt, move along folks, there's nothing to see here. •Jim62sch• 00:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Judging by user talk page conversations, this situation seems to be amicably resolved. --CBD 19:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User removes my comments from his talk page

User:Lysy continuously removes my comments from his talk page:[45][46]--Nixer 20:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This has to be the third time this type of issue has come up in the last couple days (read some of the above sections). There is nothing wrong with the user removing these comments. It's his usertalk, and by removing him he's acknowledging that he's read them. It's not polite, but it's not against the rules either. Constantly reverting the removal quite possibly is, however. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And you have just been reported for 3RR, I think you should take a rest and let things cool down before you get youself too deeply into trouble. --ArmadilloFromHell 20:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact he removes constantly.--Nixer 20:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

He's allowed to remove comments from his talk page, whether or not he archives it. It's his choice if he wants to, and it's not your place to enforce this. semper fi — Moe 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Konstable and Netspine

Konstable and Netspine have been stalking, blocking for no legitamate reason and personally attacking users in my public library and now it has been blocked. I know by posting this myself I will probably be blocked, but I need to use that library for my bussiness. All I would like is a legitamate reason (prefferably not by one of those two users). Alfred Norman 00:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

New user, no article edits, and finds ANI so quickly? Hmm. Pinch of salt. – Chacor 00:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Alfred by all means use the library for your business. Admins here can only block people from editing this site, they cannot block you from using the library or the internet. Obviosly you don't intend to conduct business here on wikipedia do you? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm just read his userpage. Funny but probably trolling. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

They found ANI from Jimbo's talk page; how they found Jimbo's page is the question. I think they are a sock of someone banned--more accounts were complaining in there earlier. Maybe the userpage is fake, but maybe not -- if you always just assume bad faith it'll hurt someone's feelings one day. Anomo 01:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they didn't, the message to Jimbo's page was posted at 00:36, this one at 00:25. I'd think it's a troll. – Chacor 01:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise libraries in Adelaide were open at 9:00am (when this guy posted)... Daniel.Bryant 01:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep clearly a troll. Note no info whatsoever on the library - what is the IP ? There is no way we could actually investigate the abuse claim without some sort of background info. Also how could somone play multiuser games over the internet uless they had thier own computer - so why do they need a library one? Assume good faith is one thing, assuming it blindly without thinking is another. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I regret restoring it on Jimbo's page. I thought somebody was erasing them when they put it here. It would help to know their real account. Anomo 01:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is fishy. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 01:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

On a completely random note - the user also lies on their userpage (63 is an unattainable level in World of Warcraft, though it pains me to have such knowledge). I would block the user myself, but he or she hasn't really done any damage yet. Cowman109^Talk 01:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Their first edit was to create a userpage. I'd support indef blocking as a troll. Alphachimp 01:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A userpage with a userbox...hmmm. Support indef as an old sock troll. Daniel.Bryant 01:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think some of our WOW articles suggest that level 63 will be posible with the next expansion pack.Geni 01:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never played WoW but on StarCraft Atlantis they mentioned level 90 and level 75. Anomo 01:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys should go edit articles or something... (The new expansion goes to 70, I thought) Alphachimp 02:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

So, in conclusion, he is either a troll or a Blizzard beta tester. — Centrx→talk • 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And he's an indef blocked troll. No substantive edits other than to attack sysops. Alphachimp 02:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL Troll (Warcraft) Playable race. Anomo 02:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like another Fredguy (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) sockpuppet from his userpage. Fredguy was initially banned for vandalism and after given a second chance started posting personal details of other people which have now been deleted by oversight. Usually comes out of 203.28.159.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), a Shared proxy in Adelaide for the ISP Internode. Me and Konstable blocked a whole ring of sockpuppets who whose only edits were to support each other as good candidates for administrators. His userpages would also always lie in English that you'd expect from a 14 year old that they were either a doctor, a lawyer, or a scientist and twenty-something years of age from anywhere but Adelaide, and unblock-auto would always expose them. Each time we block another sock, it's causing a lot of collateral damage on the autoblocker. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there was a CheckUser, but someone should check if there wasn't. It's good to know who it was, but it's bad to have guessed wrong. If it was Fredguy, I'm glad someone found who it was (but yet I'm sure the userpage info will be deleted in about a month) Anomo 18:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question on Wikistalking

Where should I go to report a wikistalker? Senator Cooter has been reverting my edits on 6-7 pages and calling my edits vandalism after I removed one of his edits. I have warned him numerous times about civility, wikistalking and have asked him to leave me alone. I would spell it out in greater detail here, but I want to make sure I am in the right place. Thanks Jasper23 02:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Providing diffs wouldn't hurt. That is, the URL to the diff links in the user's contribution, or what you get when you compare two revisions in the history. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks CC. I will also return with sock puppet accounts that user has just created. I have never learned to do diff links. Which edits should I include. There could be like 20 potential diffs. Jasper23 02:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Go to the History, or a user's contribs list. Find the edit you want to link to. Right-click on the word "last" in it, and select "Copy Link Location" or similar (however your browser expresses it). Your clipboard now contains the diff link you want. Present it enclosed in single square brackets--not double like a wikilink--to make a footnote in your text. Hope this helps, please ask if it doesn't. The reason people are always asking for diffs is that they're the only permanent links; other types of links will deteriorate and die as the page they're on is edited. Just include a few good examples (not 20 of them). Bishonen | talk 03:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

Help:Diff explains it quite nicely :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 01:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User evading ban to add AfD notices on articles which are not nominated for deletion

User:Pokeant was banned for 48 hours for disrupting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Here Comes the Squirtle Squad. He was slipping in articles not apart of the AfD into the AfD opening, removing other people's comments, and finally editing words in other people's comments.

Contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pokeant Block log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Pokeant

Once he was blocked, he returned as User:Pokants, and continued to add AfDs onto articles not nominated for AfDs.

Pokant's contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pokants

The two are obviously the same. this conversation on my talk page proves it.

Pokant has also voted again at the AfD (shown on this diff). He's already voted before as Pokeant.

--`/aksha 03:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the second account as a sockpuppet, and explained to him on his talk page why. Tagged as {{spa}} in the single AfD discussion he had time to add to. For the time being, I'll assume his AfD noms are incomplete due to a relative newness with the templates/process involved? I think this particular guy is more misguided than malicious. Luna Santin 03:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the AfD noms, this is basically what happened:

I nominated all the pokemon episodes for a group AfD (it actually turned out the Pokemon Collaboration Project was already trying to deal with them, but i didn't know). This was about four days ago. Since not all the pokemon episode articles are properly categorized, it turned out i had missed quite a few. This guy turned up today and slipped about 10 more articles in my group AfD nomination (slipping in as in he put them into the middle of my opening, making it seem like i'd nominated them in the first place.) I removed them, explaining that he shouldn't have slipped them in - because it's misleading. It made it look like as if i'd also nominated those 10 articles from the beginning, which wasn't the case at all.

But when he'd added those articles into the group AfD, he'd tagged them all as AfD. So i went and removed the AfD tags, since those articles aren't nominated at all. I decided not to add them into the group AfD, because it's already been about 4 days, so it's a bit unfair on the people who commented when the AfD started. And he...just kept on adding AfD tags back in on the basis that those articles should also be nominated together with my group nomination (note that he didn't actually try to create a new AfD nomination for them.)

And he's been stiring up some revert wars with people over at the pokemon project who're performing a bunch of merges (which i'd assume is what their project agreed to.) --`/aksha 04:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This user (Pokeant) is one of a string of abusive sockpuppets established at this RFCU case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Madkunt

Seems like a fairly offensive name, so as per WP:U, I am posting it here for Admin consideration. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a note on their talk page and done a username block/wangi 04:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Anarcho-capitalism

I recently stumbled upon the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing essay and realized how well User:Anarcho-capitalism fits the description of a "problem editor". This characteristic of a problem editor particularly struck me: "You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it." Anarcho-capitalism is similarly demanding that I demonstrate, "one by one", why his edits are not worthy of inclusion before deleting them; until then, he believes, his contributions have a right to remain, even though he hasn't justified or discussed them at all. Besides this illogic of "true until proven false", Anarcho-capitalism has the audacity to say that "There is no rule on Wikipedia that says I have to discuss my edits before I make them." This is right after I made him aware of WP:CONSENSUS. He also seems to think that he has the prerogative to determine the controversiality of his own edits: "I do not believe they are controversial edits at all, so I see no need to do so."

Overall, this editor's rejection of WP:CONSENSUS and explicit rejection of formal mediation indicate that it is impossible to bring about a consensual resolution with him—plus, I and others have been trying to discuss things with him for months on the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism pages, yet he has made no, or only very minor, concessions. Likewise, an RfC would be futile, because he adamantly believes, despite all objections, that "[He hasn't] violated any Wikipedia rules," and that he does not have to discuss edits that he believes are uncontroversial. I therefore suggest that he be blocked as per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, because he is tendentious (he is a single-issue editor, as you can deduce from his user page, with avowed partisan intentions; and he only cites sources that endorse the anarcho-capitalist POV, leaving others to rectify the massive imbalance), he abuses WP:V (he says, "I haven't violated any policies. I cite my additions." — that something is sourced does not automatically make it worthy of inclusion, however, nor does it preclude violation of WP:NPOV), and he preemptively rejects community input by explicitly refusing to discuss his edits in advance. At the very least, I would like him to be admonished by an administrator so that he will not continue to believe that he is operating within the parameters of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

(To view the above quotations in their context, and my responses to them, see Talk:Anarcho-capitalism#Unilateral.2C controversial edits by User:Anarcho-capitalism)

-- WGee 06:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule on Wikipedia that says one has to get permission from you, or anyone else, before they add cited information to an an article or remove uncited information, which is what I've done. You should focus your energies on questioning things that are not cited instead of being disruptive. And, don't tell stories that I refuse to discuss my edits. I asked you to tell me what specific problems you had with them. You wouldn't answer until you were pressed. Then, when you did answer, I told you my justifications on the discussion page.Anarcho-capitalism 08:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please use dispute resolution. Whether this is RFC, where his actions will be examined by the community, and concensus may be reached regarding this and what to do about it, Arbitration, where a select group of users will implement binding solutions, or mediation (Committee or "Cabal") to try and reach a comprimise, this page is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Daniel.Bryant 11:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Gotta agree with WGee, this isn't a simple dispute, this is an editor who has consistently pushed his point of view and has no respect for Wikipedia or its policies. He started in breach of policy: "I received a message on an email list requesting people knowledge about anarcho-capitalism to work on this page." [47]. He's recently shown his attitude towards WP and its policies: "'Original research' or not, the theory is wrong." [48] and the classic "I dont know why you keep referencing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is garbage." [49]. His User page is a classic example of POV and unwillingness to see any other point of view - "ANARCHO-CAPITALISM EXPLAINED FOR STUPID ANARCHISTS (a work in progress)". Donnacha 12:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is deep... I don't think I have ever directed any user to seek arbitration before - rather, I prefer RFC/Mediation, as the AC get angry if people send too much stuff their way :) - but I can't see this being solved on any level of DR to a satisfactory level other than arbitration. POV disputes are especially yucky, and this just makes it even harder to attempt anything other than arbitration. *shakes head in awe of this dispute and its' all-encompassing radius of gloom* Daniel.Bryant 12:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I doubt User:Anarcho-capitalism is anymore biased than other users who work at the Anarchism article, or comment on the article's talk page. The links above from User:Donnachadelong are from a discussion on the Anarchism talk page, not from actual edits User:Anarcho-capitalism made to Wikipedia articles. In this case, [50], this user simply notes that the Labour Theory of Value is an out-of-date economic theory. That's not a bold statement at all. Intangible 15:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

'Sfunny how one of the people who agrees with him appears to slag the rest of us off. Virtually all left-wing editors have gone out of their way to allow a disputed reading of anarchism have a place in the article. However, POV-pushers like anarcho-capitalism and banned users like thewolfstar and Hogeye (and their many socks) insist on redefining the entire history of anarchism to make this disputed idea fit. Yes, we're biased, in that we have our own POV, but that's very different from pushing our POV onto the entire article. Donnacha 21:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, is there no course of punitive action that you are willing to carry out right now? — because his being blocked temporarily could allow a return to consensual editing. I understand that this is not the Wikipedia complaints department; I have actually followed Wikipedia's recommendations for "Dealing with disruptive crank editors." Since the editor has refused impartial dispute resolution in the form of mediation [51], which is step 4, I've carried out step 5 (seek administrator intervention) because he refuses to attempt to build a consensus. As I've attempted to demonstrate, he fits the definition of a disruptive editor quite well. It will probably be necessary to ultimately seek arbitration, but I do think that a temporary block is justified under policy; it would also cause an increase in productivity at the anarcho-capitalism and anarchism articles. -- WGee 17:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

IIRC the Arbitration Committee has the power to issue temporary injunctions. You could file a Request for Arbitration and include a plea that the user in question be temporarily prohibited from editing any disputed articles until the Arbitration is completed. —Psychonaut 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WGee is just making a lot of noise. I haven't violated any policies, and in my opinion I have done some pretty good editing. I've added sources where there were none, took out some unsourced false information, and better explain some concepts. For some reason WGee thinks others need his permission before they make changes to an article.Anarcho-capitalism 01:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Having seen some of these issues surface at WP:FAR, this has been going on much too long; I'm glad all parties have at last read up on tenditious editing, and I wish you would both make an honest effort at mediation. The last time WGee approached WP:FAR about removing status of one of these articles, I encouraged him that dispute resolution would result in a better outcome for Wiki than seeking removal of featured article status; I haven't yet seen what looks like a sincere attempt to put forward a mediation case to resolve these issues, and two are tangoing. Sandy (Talk) 04:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There appear to be several editors in this area that fit the classic definition of Single Issue. I'd agree with what WGee is alleging about AC but point out that there may be more to this than just one side. However AC's user page!!!! My goodness, what a screed... I've been involved in trying to help in this area in the past and it's a big mess. No surprise it tends to fester, really. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

WGee is claiming that I am required to discuss my edits before I make them, but that's not true. It's perfectly permissible for me to discuss them after I make them. I'm trying to discuss the edits on the discussion page but he refuses to participate, because he's upset that I didn't discuss FIRST. It's ridiculous. He's the one that's refusing to discuss. I've been trying to get him to discuss what problems he has with my edits but he won't do it. All he wants to do is threaten to report me to administrators, threaten an arbitration case, etc. He's trying to coerce me, with threats, into not reverting back when he deletes my edits. He simply refuses to allow others (or at least me) to make edits if they dont talk about them on the discussion page first. This is all obvious if you read the "Unilateral, controversial edits by User:Anarcho-capitalism" section at bottom part of the discussion page.Anarcho-capitalism 04:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So open a mediation case. Sandy (Talk) 04:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you read my initial post? I've already proposed mediation, but Anarcho-capitalism has explicitly rejected it, twice. [52] [53] I appreciate your trying to help, but please ensure that you are up-to-date. -- WGee 06:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have actually followed Wikipedia's recommendations for "dealing with disruptive crank editors" (including months of discussion), so please be careful when alleging that I've not made sincere attempts to resolve this dispute. It's important to note that this isn't a one-on-one dispute, either, as User:Donnachadelong (who has commented above) can attest: Anarcho-capitalism has exhausted the patience of many editors at the anarchism article, as well. -- WGee 06:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To give you an idea of the nature of the disruptive behaviour, here is an example of the outrageous behaviour and personal attacks that I must face at the anarcho-capitalism article:

Honestly, WGee, I don't know what your problem is. The consensus seems to be that Anarcho-capitalism's edits are just fine. You are the one who is going against consensus. He has tried repeatedly to discuss what your problem is with his edits and you refuse to state one damned thing. You are acting irrationally - he's right. You are only here to cause trouble with this article because you don't agree with it's phiosophy. That much is clear. I suggest that you might benefit from psychiatric help, WGee. Jesus, you're only 16 years old and you're acting like a mean cynical old man. Get some help before it's too late. Doctors without suspenders 05:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC) [54]

Now you can understand why I'm so keen to seek binding administrative intervention to deal with this problem. Users such as Doctors without suspenders (whom I and others suspect is a sockpuppet of User:Lingeron, User:Thewolfstar, etc.) gain encouragement from fellow anarcho-capitalists like User:Anarcho-capitalism, who treat Wikipedia like a battleground. Well-intentioned users are deterred from important articles because of such acrimony. All in all, this situation is a shameful mess, and it will not improve unless the disruptive editors are blocked or banned in a timely manner. -- WGee 06:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, User:Anarcho-capitalism started out reasonably open and interested in properly developing the articles. However, he's clearly picked up bad habits from the stream of banned users and socks on these articles. Donnacha 13:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And this is Anarcho-capitalism's inflammatory and offensive response to that slew of personal attacks: "Well, that explains a lot." [55] This trollish behaviour is getting out of control. -- WGee 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

SLS Health AFD needs to close

The AFD debate for SLS Health has been open since October 19. Can someone close it please?

Done. Easy decision, for an AfD that fell through the cracks. Usually this happens because no-one who's already seen it wants to close it. Grandmasterka 07:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Good, good, but here's another one: the AfD debate for Seth Sabal, which started a day earlier at 18 Oct and swiftly generated heat and light, but which hasn't been touched since 20:20, 19 October 2006. -- Hoary 08:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The backlog at WP:AFD/Old currently goes back to 17 Oct. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I do my bit, but I'm limited by this. Daniel.Bryant 01:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Improper language

Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha

The above article is highly offensive

"62.193.106.87 09:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)"

I don't see what you're getting at. I don't see anything offensive there.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, not now. I just reverted it and warned the user for this. --Wasell 09:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner" -- mmm, we should set up an "admin polite understatement of the month" award. -- Hoary 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Usually, these people are smart enough to vandalize, and then point out the flaws :P—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The vandal, in this case, was 125.22.53.166 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Who are you talking about? (Not me I hope! ;-) --Wasell 11:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

60.228.118.45

I'm hereby reporting the ip 60.228.118.45 for his unnecessary editing and vandalism, which can be found [56]. Most notably editing the Australian motto into something offensive.--SGGH 10:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In future, please use admin intervention against vandalism for problems like this. Daniel.Bryant 01:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User:KittenKlub refusing to sign vandal warnings

KittenKlub refuses to sign his posts when he gives vandal warnings. According to him, this is standard practice on the Dutch Wikipedia, and prevents vandals from retaliating. I see three problems with this: one, if he makes a mistake, the user will find it much more difficult to explain himself; two, it's discourteous, and arguably a failure of WP:AGF to assume that someone is going to vandalise your userpage if you give them your name; and three, user page vandalism isn't usually a big deal anyway. If a vandal is diverted to someone's userpage, that means he isn't vandalising the encyclopaedia.

After a brief exchange, which was then archived, KittenKlub refuses to sign based on the fact that it's a bad guideline and only a guideline anyway. For the reasons above, I disagree, but he is right that it's a guideline and currently it's just a matter of my opinion against his. If anyone feels the same way, please consider leaving him a message. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"you should not make it too easy on them"...I'd definitely call that not assuming good faith. --InShaneee 17:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think not signing warnings is a very good idea, but unltimately he's correct: it's a guideline, and a guideline cannot be enforced. Let's face it, we've made ourselves a community where ignoring all rules is standard practise, and from that we have to take the bad with the good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this might be a bit of a different case; while it may be a guideline in the general sense, I think in the case of warnings it's assuming bad faith (especially from Kitten's statements), and almost harassment (in the sense that they're not making it easy for people to contest/explain their actions). --InShaneee 20:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want 'enforcement' as such, I'd just like someone to give him a third opinion. Guidelines may be only guidelines, but they tend to stem from policy - notability guidelines, for example, are extensions of WP:NOT, WP:V etc. In this case, both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are arguably being broken. There has to be a good reason to ignore guidelines apart from 'they're only guidelines'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why vandal warnings need to be signed. —Centrx→talk • 23:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Centrx. I think it is good form to sign the vandal warning although I think it does open one to being vandalized and attacked. If the vandal wants to explain himself, he can do so on his own Talk Page. Besides, the identity of the warning's author is available in the edit history. So we're only talking about courtesy here not anything very substantive. Considering how many people do not leave warnings when reverting vandalism, we should be happy that KittenKlub is leaving a warning at all. I would advise that you leave him be and focus your energies elsewhere. --Richard 23:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I always sign mine, but I don't think it's that big a deal that he doesn't do it. Vandalism warnings are basically a community action anyway, so unless he's leaving them in an abusive manner (i.e. for people that aren't actually vandals), his identity isn't really relevant. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The least I'd like to see is five tildes (timestamp), whcih would make it easier for future warnings. Not signing it makes the job longer going into the history to see how long ago the warning was, especially when it may have been issued five or six months prior, in which case the IP could've been re-assigned and a next-level warning would not make sense. – Chacor 02:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. People leaving warnings later need to know when the warning was given. While it's possible using the history, there's no need to make it that difficult. --bainer (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd say it's a "big deal", but I'd largely agree with SB here. It seems especially odd to do this, while explicitly asking on one's own page "Please sign your comments using four tildes". The Golden Rule, and all that. That it's policy to ignore guidelines (as well as policy to ignore policy) is ultimately a problem with that policy (and the dictat that underpins it being policy), but in this case one struggles to see how the imposition of signing warning even satisfies the side-condition of same. Doubtless we'll shortly be seeing a Wikipedia:Just a guideline essay (or guideline?): it's a depressingly familiar refrain. Alai 02:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why this was posted to WP:ANI. If all you wanted was more opinions on the matter, why did you not raise this on WP:VPP or as an WP:RFC? This certainly isn't an administrator-only issue. —Psychonaut 02:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but before this gets moved to a page not on my watchlist, I think people should always sign warnings (although like others I don't think this is an issue that deserves punitive action). If nothing else, an unsigned warning carries less weight. If an editor is unwilling to put their name to the complaint they're making, then it encourages (IMO) the recipient to ignore the warning. Also, I think retaliation is a red herring. The thing is, editors who are not savvy enough to figure out how to use the history to discover who posted the warning are likely to have adverse reactions (as noted above), and those who are savvy enough can still harrass the poster of the warning. Anchoress 03:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is about a specific user, not policy in general, so WP:VPP is not the right place, and this isn't serious enough for RfC - that's blatantly obvious by the fact that I wouldn't have a second certifier. It may not be an admin-only issue in the strict sense of what privileges your account has, but it's an adminstrative issue in the sense that it relates to a 'behind the scenes' matter. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There are two reasons why I sign my vandal warnings is to provide a timestamp for other vandalwhackers so they can provide the appropriate level warning and to make it easier to get feedback. You can easily deal with the userpage vandalism by 1) revert, block, ignore or 2) semi-protection. MER-C 11:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Socks ahoy

An AfD on an expat's version of WP:NFT seems to be attracting a group of anonymous IPs (despite being claiming to be expats in Japan, half of them trace back outside the country) and one fairly dormant named editor (User:Crossfire), with few if any edits, with the same verbose style and claims of personally witnessing this, and ALL (including User:Crossfire) with the identical unwillingness/inability to leave signatures. I'm NOT willing to swallow that as a coincidence. And yes, I left the list at Open Proxies Reporting. This is really getting on my nerves. --Calton | Talk 14:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete, and it had little to do with the SPAs — had only one of them were to provide a few reliable sources, I likely would have closed as no concsensus. Please feel free to review my closing comments. Hope they makes sense. El_C 11:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Gavin06

This user has consintantly been uploading images, mostly relating to Elena Paparizou, which have no copyright tags. He (presuming the name reflects actual sex) has been warned multiple times on his talk but continues to do so. He has also been disruptive in addition of these images to articles. A good example would be this where he added the image Image:Helenapaparizounew1.jpg with no copyright status (I would presume fair use). I subsequently replaced it with properly fair use (with rationale) tagged Image:elenapaparizou.jpg (now PNG of same name) [57]. Then today, he uploaded an identical copy of the previous untagged image - again with no tag - to Image:Thegameoflove.jpg and replaced the properly tagged image in the article [58] (I have now speedied it). However, this is not a lone incident. There is an enourmas trail of "untagged images" left by OrphanBot and other users, all of which have been ignored (the ones that were tagged, were done by other users like this). I really think that a strong warning needs to be given (or a block from uploading, if that's possible). But without doubt, an admin should start watching his talk page (obviously no admin has noticed so far). Thanks - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 14:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've given him a warning; if he continues, I think he should be blocked for 24 hours, or at least have his ability to upload images removed for a longer period (if that's possible). It's a pity that users who repeatedly fail to provide adequate source and copyright information when uploading images, despite being asked to do so many times, often go unnoticed. Extraordinary Machine 14:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I intended to report last month, but couldn't find the page to do it. Come to think of it, I can't remember how I found it today! Oh, I also strongly suspect the, now inactive, user, User:Gavinhoskins is him also (look at the contribs and the original versions of the images uploaded by the account, which also have not tags) - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 15:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Eastern University Page

The Page for Eastern University has been vandalized several times since yesterday. the IP address for one of them is on campus (I work there) and others are registered users including one that is the name on a non notable alumnus who added his name with a link to his Facebook page to the notable alumni section. I added a semi protection stub for the time being. --Ted-m 14:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to add "Shame on the Eastern University vandal. What a jerk for adding a Facebook link. When do you think would be a good time to unprotect this page?Ted-m Ted-m 16:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you create a second username to post that? --InShaneee 17:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Cogito ergo sumo and right to vanish

Cogito ergo sumo (talk · contribs) after a lengthy revert war was blocked for a violation of 3rr and left in a huff. A few days later he resurfaced as Ex post factoid (talk · contribs) and continued his edit war. Subsequently a sock investigation was initiated. It was established that they both are E Pluribus Anthony (talk · contribs) and both accounts got blocked. After questioning by some if really a violation of WP:SOCK occured (see: User_talk:Kilo-Lima#Curious_blocks) the blocks were recinded as the accounts were used in sequence and not simultaniosly. Now the user wants to vanish the evidence of his revertwaring by excersising the "right to vanish" which is fine for his userpage, but not for the talkpage which includes a) evidence of his revertwaring including the denied unblock[59], also it includes evidence that he is User:142.150.134.58 see [60]

Therefore I suggest the history of the talkpage will stay visible - while I have nothing against blanking the page - in case a further incarnation of the user appears.

P.S. E Pluribus Anthony (talk · contribs) equally requested to have his user and talkpages removed thereby proving the connection.

See also User_talk:Tone#quote_from_meta for the discussion following the first deletion of the talkpage. Agathoclea 19:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I would undelete User talk:E Pluribus Anthony as well. He was a very active editor and usually deleting talk pages like his are frowned upon. semper fi — Moe 19:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reversed my recent deletion of this page. Another admin is of course free to review depending on how this thread goes. - BanyanTree 20:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/E_Pluribus_Anthony there are User talk:A the 0th and User talk:Lucky Mustard which equally "vanished" 17/18 May. Agathoclea 19:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Death threat against user

Just posted here. Newyorkbrad 20:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Already indef blocked. --InShaneee 20:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 blocked one minute after I posted. Thank you both. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I tossed a warning at the talk page, but I guess it's too late. --Masamage 20:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Indef block pending explanation. It looks like Theresa deleted some subpages of his (for good reason). If he has a convincing apology/reason, I'll unblock. Thatcher131 21:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

He seems a little strange, but not particulaly threatening. Some kid I suppose. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to unblock him since you were the target, go ahead. I'll give him a second chance if he is willing to discuss the matter. Thatcher131 23:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No I'm fine with you asking for an explanation first. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not unblock anyone after a death threat, even if they say they're sorry or whatever. Even if you're okay with it, bringing them back gives them a chance to similarly harass and threaten others who might not be. I know the vast majority of them say they'd never really go through with it (etc) but that's no excuse to make it easy for the few who would. There's already been real-life murders on Myspace, and we don't need that here as well. Nobody should give their life for the privlege of editing a website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree with Andrew. Certain edits are beyond the pale; death threats are one of those. If the person is truly contrite, they will create a new ID and edit properly from now on. If they revert to such behavior; they should be checkusered and permabanned on sight. -- Avi 16:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it's high time we had a formal policy on Wikipedia specifically prohibiting death threats and excplicitly defining them as a bannable offense (our harassment policy mentions them in passing but is very vague). So I've started a very rough policy proposal at Wikipedia:Death threats. I welcome any additions, changes, or feedback. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Steel359

[61]

User not only violated 3RR (I didn't, because only 3 of my edits there are reverts), but reverted and protected the article to his ideal version. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Steel359 for three hours for edit warring on Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. The protecting to his preferred version aside (that's territory for RFC and/or WP:RFAR), administrators should be expected to know better than to edit war on articles. He continued edit warring on the article after several users tried to contact him concerning his protection of the article, so I blocked to get him to discuss these instead of continuing this unproductive editing. Feel free to review this block, of course. Cowman109^Talk 00:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Support this block based on the evidence presented here. Protecting to a preferred version while in a content dispute is also not done. Hopefully just an aberration though. ++Lar: t/c 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The block should be for 24 hours. I've never seen anyone blocked for less than 24 hours for 3RR before. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Eight hour blocks are not uncommon. —Centrx→talk • 01:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Centrx. I see 8 hours used a lot for 3RR with experienced editors. Daniel.Bryant 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, having very obviously broken the spirit of 3RR, A Link to the Past should be very wary of asking for blocks of admins with whom he has been edit-warring, to be extended. Guy 19:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Supporting similarly to Lar, though Link has a point. I don't support changing the block length now that it's set, though. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The blocker said he did three hours to try to get Steel to engage in discussion, but he doesn't seem to have been interested in discussing it. So I think the block should be increased. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Steel359 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) his block log has a good record, no previous blocks, and this block is in my view intended to get his attention and get him talking. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If this block does the trick, why would a longer one be a good thing? I've given blocks as short as 15 minutes just to get people to stop and think about what they are doing. 3 hours seems right. Also, i'd rather we not establish the precedent of one of the parties to a dispute arguing about how long a block is for, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 01:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Admins should be blocked for longer than, say, a long-time regular user. They got the position, and if they violate a policy that could lead to a block, they s hould know better than to do such a thing. It's almost like special treatment to NOT block him for 24 hours. I got blocked for it, and my 3RR wasn't as nearly as bad as his 3RR. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

All revert wars are bad. There is no such thing as "my reverts weren't as bad as his". Three hours is fine. Support block and block length. – Chacor 01:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

However, you've got quite a history. --InShaneee 01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive; they are deterrent, preventive, and recording. In this case, the blocking administrator thinks that a 3-hour block will be sufficient to deter the user from future disruptive behavior. This could be because the blocking administrator has prior knowledge of the user, where otherwise he might give a default longer block, but that is not favoritism. —Centrx→talk • 01:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee: I've been blocked twice before that blocked, and had them lifted. Also, what can be deterred? "Oh, three hours? Better take a nap/watch a movie/clean house!" - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

They can do whatever they like during the duration of thier block off-wiki. The point is to stop thier disruptive behavior on wiki. semper fi — Moe 03:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Cowman109 just directed me to this discussion. I filed a report at WP:AN3 before realizing that a three-hour block already was in place. Had I noticed Steel359's 3RR violation before I became involved in the American/British spelling dispute, I would have placed a 24-hour block myself. If anything, administrators should be held to a higher standard than other users. It's true that 3RR blocks aren't punitive, but Steel359 reverted the page six times in a 14-hour period (during which he protected the page to gain the upper hand in a content dispute). He could use a 24-hour break to cool down. —David Levy 02:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If the initial block does not do the trick, I would support a longer block. I don't see any sign of discussion on Steel's talk page... so not sure how it would play out, let us wait and see. But again, I don't see a party to a 3rr (Link) having any standing to comment on who got how much blockage. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's my belief that any user in good standing (including one with involvement) is entitled to comment on an issue (with others taking all of the facts into account). I obviously was not entitled to issue a block myself, of course. —David Levy 12:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll take a break. I've been really moody for a while and I'm surprised it took so long for something like this to happen. Some important things in RL are coming up and I'd rather not be dealing with this at the same time. I don't intend to start a huge discussion on ANI when there are more suitable places, but I'm going to vent a little. The content dispute itself is about vgcharts - a site of videogame sales figures. This site (apparently) uses shipping figures to estimate a game's sales, and ALTTP has been removing these in good faith on the grounds that they're misleading. The text in the article makes it explicitely clear that they're estimates, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Also, when removing the sales info, ALTTP carelessly left sentence fragments lying around (see the third line here), and then later removed content unrelated to the dispute when reverting me [62]. As for the spelling, the article was almost totally rewritten during the process of taking it to FA. There was no conscious effort to change the style. But seeing as along the way it did change, I can't see why so much effort is being put into changing it from one version which isn't inconsistent to another version which also isn't inconsistent [63]. When I was reverted, I was pointed to the manual of style. The first bullet point there says: "Articles should use the same dialect throughout.". It was unconsciously changed from one to another as huge chunks of text were removed and new chunks were written (by me) from scratch, and the end product did use the same style throughout.
Like I said, sorry to moan about article stuff on ANI. I've been spending too much time on Wikipedia lately, and formal logic isn't going to revise itself, so this is quite a convenient point to take a break. I worked really hard on MGS3 to get it to FA, and suddenly people are parading in and making all these changes without a whisper on the talk page. And I'm going to stop there before someone accuses me of WP:OWN. -- Steel 10:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Steel, no. Just saying that it's an estimate does not cut it. Wouldn't you do the same if you saw a featured article saying "according to false information, Pocky & Rocky sold 800,000 copies"? Because that's what it is. I know the person who owns the site; on the forum that he posts on he's constantly plugging his site. It got so bad that VGCharts was banned from all sales discussions at NeoGAF. The owner of the web site, ioi, is not a professional by any definition of the word. In fact, I get review copies from various developers in the industry to review on a site I work on, so I am actually more connected to the industry than he is, because he has absolutely no connections. Just because you specify that the source is an unprofessional estimater does not make the numbers any less bogus. Additionally, just because I unintentionally reverted something, yes, but that could have easily been added back without reverting the VGCharts information back, so don't claim I did it when you did it as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, your decision to take a break is a wise one. As I commented at WP:AN3, it was obvious to me that you were under a great deal of stress. (In our one prior interaction, you seemed quite reasonable.)

Regarding the dialect switch, I believe you when you say that this was unconscious, but that doesn't change the fact that it was improper. American spellings (such as "organization" and "humor") had been in use in the article since February 2005 (when the first dialect-specific spelling was introduced). You recently substituted British spellings, thereby creating inconsistency that remained until an anonymous user changed the heading "localization" to "localisation" a few days ago. When someone switched it back, you twice reverted (the first time with no explanation) on the basis that the article used British spellings.

Quoth the portions of the MoS to which I was referring:

"If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)"

"Follow the dialect of the first contributor."

"If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article."

I don't doubt that your conversion from American to British spellings was innocent, and I never ascribed malice; I simply restored the English variety originally used in the article. I've done the same thing with articles that were improperly changed from British English to American English.

In any event, I wish you the best of luck in your personal matters (and your wiki matters upon your return). —David Levy 12:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The way I've always understood it is that the first contributor thing should be brought into play when there's an inconsistency. At the time you changed the style, there was no inconsistency, and so no need to revert to American spellings. Anyway, consider that my last message, I'm off now. -- Steel 13:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The "first contributor" rule takes effect when there's a dispute regarding which variety of English to use and no other valid reason to select one in particular. Otherwise, we would be inviting users to deliberately change established articles to their preferred dialects (citing the fact that this results in "no inconsistency, and so no need to revert"), thereby sparking massive edit wars. The fact that the article existed in consistent British English for two days (as opposed to the 1 ½ years in which it was written in consistent American English) didn't somehow render that particular status quo sacrosanct. —David Levy 16:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A message I received

[64]
If he'd said that about someone else he would probably be blocked (by me) by now. I really don't appreciate being talked about in that way and consider it exceptionally insulting. This isn't a "go and block him for me" request, but I'd be grateful if in my absence someone could remind him to AGF or something. -- Steel 13:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A comment that was unnecessary and only served to inflame things, I'd support a strongly-worded warning. – Chacor 13:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is true that you did 3RR, plus protected a page you were deeply to keep it at your preferred version and was only blocked for three hours. I mean, it wasn't as if you violated a petty policy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Flowcube indef blocked as sockpuppet of Homeontherange

I've indefinitely blocked Flowcube (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Homeontherange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm not very familiar with the case (see here), so if anyone who's more familiar with the case disagrees please don't hesitate to talk to me or reverse the block. Thanks! Snoutwood (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There was never an arbitration case on user:Homeontherange. The page you referred to was a subpage created for the case application comments which got very long; when the case was rejected the subpage should have been too.

Homey's current status is in doubt. Fred Bauder has argued that he should be given the chance to register an account and edit peacefully; so long as he edits peacefully he should not be "outed" or blocked. Jayjg has argued that Homey has used up his supply of second chances. Thatcher131 01:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Should he be unblocked, then? Snoutwood (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, it was "rejected" on the naive presumption that Homey had gone the way of the buffalo. Granted, the chips are a bit stale now, but somebody should toss them back on the table and pursue the fabled persona non grata dentata remedy. —freak(talk) 10:01, Oct. 29, 2006 (UTC)

If that's what happened, that's unfortunate. Whenever something's left in limbo like that it's hard to get going again. I don't feel particularly inclined to pursue arbitration myself, but I certainly can agree with your sentiments. Snoutwood (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently per Fred Bauder's talk page, Homey, Fred, SlimVirgin and Jimbo are in negotiations regarding his status. I would probably leave things at status quo (neither unblock nor block any new suspected socks) until something is worked out and they let us know. Thatcher131 17:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that. Thanks a million for the help, I will follow that advice. Snoutwood (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish the arbcom would stop taking the easy way out of avoiding making a decision based on the usually faulty argument that the troublesome user has left the project, as they almost invariably come back and we have to start all over again. I seem to recall similar things having happened with Lir, Xed and Wik. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Or, to put it otherwise, that the decision is made regardless of the person having left. However, that does seem to be changing (cf. Giano's ArbCom case and the remedies regarding Kelly Martin after her leaving the project). I'd love to see that continue. Snoutwood (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Snoutwood, what was the evidence that Flowcube was Homeontherange? Feel free to e-mail me instead if it's sensitive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, guess I didn't make that clear :) See Special:Undelete/User talk:Flowcube, particularly [65]. Snoutwood (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite see what it is. You mentioned the check user and RfAr pages; was it IP evidence or editing style or something else? Again, please e-mail anything that might be sensitive, if it's no trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to Flowcube's most recent edit summary "FUCK OFF HOMEONTHERANGE IS BACK U WANKER", which you can see by scrolling down on the undelete page, as well as the contents of the entirely self-created talk page, which includes a number of sockpuppet templates in which Flowcube claims to be Homeontherange. Snoutwood (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Snoutwood. By all means keep it blocked because it's clearly a troublemaker, but in fairness possibly not Homeontherange. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the ip behind this, and several other prank accounts. Fred Bauder 23:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ecm2006

User Ecm2006 (talk · contribs) apparently created EverTeam, which was db-speedied. Now the editor is speedying every competitor that can be found. I don't know if this is a concern or not. This is almost certainly related to the edits of 82.255.142.13 (talk · contribs), Cduudc (talk · contribs) and Ucddcu (talk · contribs). I think the editor is trying to make a point because they repeatedly fail to get their own article in. See the deletion log for Ever-Team and EverSuite. JonHarder 00:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User advertising for job openings on his page User:DJ_BatWave

This nominally underage user had his phone number along with a request for band members. I removed it, naming WP:NOT. I'm not an admin, just FYI. Anchoress 03:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering the nature of the information, and the fact it contains specific personal information, I would suggest an admin speedy this. Daniel.Bryant 03:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean speedy the whole userpage? The user is a contentious but prolific editor who hasn't ever been blocked (although I'm surprised at that because he's been monstrously uncivil several times lol), so it's not a socialising-only account. Anchoress 03:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll reword my statement: delete, and restore without personal info (which is exactly what was done [66]). Apologies for the misunderstanding - it's just that we don't want that kind of info floating around, even in the histories of pages. Daniel.Bryant 03:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it and restored it without the personal info. If other admins want to revert my action, they can feel free to do so, but it only seemed logical to me. Alphachimp 03:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy anointing oil

Cannabis is repeatedly added to Holy anointing oil. I am now taking it off my watchlist. WAS 4.250 03:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted to the last version by WAS 4.250 but there seem to be cannibis references even in that version, so I'm a little bit confused as to what a good version of the article is supposed to look like. In any event, the last 4 references to cannibis were added by the same IP and there are no vandalism warnings (I would issue a "blatantvandal" now except that based on the above, as I said I'm not sure what exactly is vandalism here). Newyorkbrad 03:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

All "cannabis" references are now deleted and the vandal's been final-warned. Newyorkbrad 03:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no, the reference is back again. I have added {{fact}} to the cannabis reference and slapped an {{unsourced}} on the whole thing. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

People of Praise

There seems to be a small edit war going on within the People of Praise article. About a week or two back, D1xrfgf3, a new user who claims to be a former member of the group, made an edit putting the group in a darker light then previously. Danbold, whom I know via real life to be a member of the group, quickly cleaned up the article to his standards. Justinw, whom I know nothing about, but has been here since May 2004, made a small edit. D1xrfgf3 then made a small edit, reinserting charged material implying the group is a cult. 76.17.232.181, an anonymous IP whose only edits are to the POP article, and whose location seems to be somewhere in Minnesota, a location where a large part of the group lives, then reverted the previous edit.

I'm not a member of the group, but I do attend their school, and know many of them personally. I'm not going to say anything as to whether it is a cult or not right now, as I don't want to bias anyone either way. However, if you do want questions answered from someone with firsthand real life knowledge of the group who is willing to give NPOV answers, I'll answer at my talk page.

I'm not nearly as active as I used to be around here, just have a ton going on in real life - on an indefinite Wikibreak, checking in daily or so. So I'm gonna have to hand this issue off to someone else, but I think it may need administrator intervention. Thanks a lot for taking care of this. -Zapptastic (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries are a contravene [sic] of US law...

...according to Prof02 (talk · contribs · count). I couldn't bear to let this remain on a secluded user talk subpage, so I copied it here. Basically, someone asked this guy to use edit summaries, and this was the response:

“ (1) Edit summaries. No court of law anywhere in the world, not even in the post-Orwellian world, would legitimize the doublespeak whereby the author of a work-in-progress could be considered to be his own ‘editor’ for the purpose of defining his rights vis-à-vis his own work.

If however, as the author of the work-in-progress in question, I am asked to provide ‘edit summaries’, I am in reality being asked to provide you and others, not with any ‘editorial’ details that might help anybody with anything, but rather give you a privileged insight into my creative process, disclose my work methodologies, organization of material, priorities given to certain aspects of the subject, the direction in which I am going with the article, etc., etc. No one has any right whatever to this information, and insistence that I divulge it constitutes an invasion of my privacy as the author. While such an invasion may not violate Wikipedia’s internal guidelines and policies, it is against the law of my country (which is also the country where Wikipedia was founded). By becoming a guest on this website and by using your facilities I did not, voluntarily or involuntarily, implicitly or explicitly, surrender the rights vested in me by the law of the land. Their infringement is an offence. Whatever Wikipedia guidelines might say, they do not supersede the law of the land, whether they are pressed ‘politely’ or ‘impolitely’.

--User talk:Prof02/Erich Heller#Ease of editing section break

”

This is just an example of what this user is ranting about. Maybe someone should Wikilawyerespond back - taking a look at his user talk page and that of the subpage, someone needs to explain that Wikipedia is not a US court of law and you have no right to edit Wikipedia etc. I didn't know where else to post this, and I guess that admins need to intervene in this case - most normal users will just get lawyered into the ground. He seems to think that Dispute Resolution means running a court case on his talk page, also. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This user certainly has ... idiosyncrasies ... but you have cited to a post from a couple of months ago on an old subpage. I believe a scroll down his main talkpage indicates that several admins are already dealing with this matter. Newyorkbrad 09:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that's the most verbose way of saying "mind your own business" I've seen in quite some time. Rather touching, actually. —freak(talk) 09:45, Oct. 29, 2006 (UTC)

No, no, that is not at all what I was trying to say. Daniel, who is not an admin (though his day will arrive, and he performs a number of admin-type tasks), was posting here to point out a problem that admins should look at. My point was that admins were already engaged in the situation so that busy admins, seeing the post here and trying to prioritize, needn't give it urgent attention, instead of 10 people checking the userspace and finding the same thing I found.

This noticeboard has become a very unpleasant place to try to be helpful. Newyorkbrad 10:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

See below. —freak(talk) 19:40, Oct. 29, 2006 (UTC)

My apologies...I didn't see that there were admins who were trying to sort it out, other than the two who he wants desysopped. And don't worry NYBrad, I didn't interpret your comment hostile in the slightest - actually, quite civil compared to what you get other times from certain users :). Still, that makes for interesting reading (where, by "interesting", I mean "hilarious"). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think freak was referring to Prof02's statement, not Newyorkbrad's statement :) --bainer (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. —freak(talk) 19:40, Oct. 29, 2006 (UTC)

And here I was thinking Anglius could never be topped :) Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny he should mention Orwell. Oh the irony. I strongly recommend he read "Politics and the English Language." Antandrus (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And, anyway, the original writer was wrong in his basic premises; in fact, there were many occasions when I was both writer and editor, long before Wikipedia existed; it occurred every time I was the editor of a publication and also wrote some of the material that appeared in it. *Dan T.* 20:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The right to disappear (continued)

I feel it is my sworn duty to remind Wikipedians of this policy. Nothing personal, but if I ever want to pack it up on this website, I would appreciate it if you'd all delete my contributions. Thanks.KevinS0814 10:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it odd that this is your very first edit here, and that you would know about this page and that policy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My other name got blocked,(but my contributions didnt). I'm not gonna get into the long story on how that happened, but lets just say I wish I could make those edits disappear!KevinS0814 10:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, your contributions cannot be deleted on whim - they are released under the GFDL license, and hence must fufill Wikipedia's deletion policy if the pages they are on are to be deleted. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The right to vanish includes deletion of pages in your user space (your user page, user talk page and any subpages), but not deletion of your contributions. However you may be able to have your username changed if you don't want it to be associated with the contributions you have made. --bainer (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be the perfect {{nutshell}} statement for that proposal. Kudos to you, Thebainer - nicely summed up. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the right to vanish is not really a proposal, nor even a policy. The page explaining it was started in late 2004 as a spin-off of the foundation:privacy policy. --bainer (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what I've done. I'm really ashamed of my previous contributions and would've felt better jumping out the window, but instead I changed my username.KevinS0814 10:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

For everyone's sake, don't jump out any window - it's not good for your health (I fell off a balcony once - I imagine a window would be just as painful...) :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The only exception to are users talkpages, which are not autopmatically under that idea. see Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_and_user_talk_pages.3F A sysop will then delete it after checking that the page does not contain evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept. If there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information. If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page. If a user page were deleted because a contributor left, it may be restored by a sysop if the contributor returns, particularly if the history contains evidence of policy violations. Agathoclea 22:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Cloveious and violation of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #8

On Friday, I removed political party logos from 40th Canadian federal election because they were being used in a decorative manner when identifying the party by its name with a link to the party's article was sufficient [67]. Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #8 forbids the use of logos in the manner in which they were being used on the article. Saturday, User:Cloveious reverted my removal with an edit summary of "Reverting, Party logos are an important identifier during a campaign" [68]. I reverted his re-insertion of the logos [69] and immediately left User:Cloveious a message on his talk page regarding the issue [70]. Later Saturday, [[User:Cloveious left me a message on my talk page [71] saying "I will revert what ever I see fit" and subsequently re-inserted the logos, yet again [72] with the edit summary "Reverting Durin's fear mongering campaign of non contribution".

Please note that the use of logos in the manner that User:Cloveious violates not just Wikipedia policy, but fair use law itself. If his treatment of this issue were legal, anyone could make a million t-shirts with any logo on it because it serves to identify whatever the logo represents. This isn't how fair use law works.

I am reverting User:Cloveious's actions again, and am seeking other admins to comment on his talk page and revert him if necessary. --Durin 13:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll issue a final warning. He does it again, he's blocked.--Doc 13:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation

User:Anthony.cfc is, in my opinion, attempting to impersonate my Username (User:Anthony_cfc). Evidence for this is:

• User talk:Sj - if you look closely User:Anthony.cfc has linked to MY userpage to invite a response which clearly demonstrates impersonation.
• His userpage clearly makes up lies about me, as well as demonstrating a motive for impersonation (he seems to evy my userpage).

I have not bit the vandal, and I have remained civil in all my communication with User:Anthony.cfc, despite the fact I have seriously lost my patience.

In conclusion, this user has no intention of contributing to Wikipedia and has only created an account in order to brand me homosexual and a prik and similar mindless lies.

Please resolve this as you see fit. Cheers.

Anthonycfc (talk • email) 12:34, Tuesday June 11 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefintely and deleted their userpage which was little more than an attack (claiming to be from the same place and a petty insult) --pgk 14:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As an aside can you fix your signature. Including {{currenttime}} etc. is pretty useless as it updates the timestamp each time the page is changed so give no indication of when you really made your post. --pgk 14:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ebionite pages may be bugged

I found evidence that the Talk:Ebionites and Talk:Ebionite Jewish Community pages may be bugged with some kind of Trojan Horse. In the Privacy log on my anti-virus software, I found the following: [73] , [74] , [75] , [76] , [77] , [78] , [79]. The last one is a redirect with source title=Talk:Ebionites&action=edit&section=5.

I believe that all of these originate from the same user, Nazirene, who is the owner of numerous websites promoting his own religious group. A stub created by this user to promote the group recently went through two AfDs resulting in deletion and page protection Ebionite Restoration Movement. Recently, this user has been complaining about censorhip on the Ebionites talk page Talk:Ebionites#Please Don't Fix and in a website linked to the talk page [80] that criticizes the editorial policies of Wikipedia.

I was tipped off to the problem by a warning message when I clicked on the talk pages and the edit history. If I'm wrong about all this, I apologize in advance, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Ovadyah 16:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, I recovered these IPs from my connection log. I think these are all linked to this user: brotherofyeshua.com(66.94.237.68;66.94.237.82;66.94.237.85), thethreelies.com(68.142.212.90), ss.webring.com(69.90.135.88;69.90.135.89), hostingprod.com(66.94.237.82), visit.geocities.com(66.218.77.64), geo.yahoo.com(68.142.232.54). Ovadyah 17:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The same funny-business is apparently going on with my user page User_talk:Ovadyah. I tried several other user pages, but I only see a warning on mine. Ovadyah 21:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages cannot contain web bugs or trojans. Whatever it is that's happening to you, it's nothing to do with the contents of those pages. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User:racism

saw the person recieve test4im on recent changes, looked at his contributions, and noticed he redirected idiot to jew. he also put {{hoax}} on the hindu article, which is why he got the warning.

links:racism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Username blocked. --InShaneee 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Jithesh (2nd nomination) sockpuppetry

Checkuser reveals that there is a lot of abusive sockpuppetry going on here. The following are all the same person:

• Nileena joseph (talk · contribs)
• Dr.khan (talk · contribs)
• Nooranadu mohan (talk · contribs)
• Joshygeorge (talk · contribs)
• Adv. P. R. Bijuchandran (talk · contribs)
• Meeracmusic (talk · contribs)

I hope an admin can look into this. Dmcdevit·t 17:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I cancelled the AfD, and Srikeit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has indef'd all the socks. Presumably the socket can ask for one and only one to be unblocked if they wish to play nicely. -Splash - tk 18:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oddly, they do not appear to have collaborated on any other AfDs. -Splash - tk 18:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User:70.141.125.22

70.141.125.22 (talk · contribs), an anonymous IP, keeps posting a dubious bunch of "trivia" to the Republic of Texas (group) article. This has been added by other users / anons earlier, and always removed by consensus. This time, the user included an attack on others who remove the section: "Anyone who removes this section is obviously little and knows nothing" *Dan T.* 17:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet/troll whatever

this user moves straight away (within 6 edits) to a RFA and makes replies like this --Charlesknight 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal 193.251.135.126

Please block anon user [81] for blanking several article sections. Markussep 18:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

An unfair case

Hello! I recently made the following comments on the talk page of Chinese people and was blocked indefinitely. The reason given to me is a sock puppet case. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snle. The computer I used is one at my university computer lab, which is shared by all students. I think the administrator's action is totally unfair. I took a look at the sock puppet case and didn't see many similarity among those blocked editors. Most of them are just temporary accounts people use for the purpose of not revealing IP address. The accused user SNLE was indefinitely blocked only for sock puppet. I don't think sock puppet is justifiable for indefinitely block, as indicated in the Wikipedia Sock Puppet page. Anyway, I think the administor is too arbitrary in making his decision in case of shared IP address. I wonder if some outsider could come and solve this case or at least ask the administrator to stop blocking people on unjustified bases. Thanks.User68732 19:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

" This disambiguation page contains too many unnecessary misleading information. According to Wiki's policy, a disambiguation page should be a simple list of the relevant links that make readers easy to navigate. There is a standard disambiguation page at Chinese page, where Chinese people are properly disambiguated.

• Chinese people, people of Chinese ethnicity
  • Zhonghua minzu, the supra-ethnic Chinese nationality
  • Han Chinese, the dominant ethnic group in China
  • Ethnic minorities in China
  • Overseas Chinese

I think this pagre should look something like this. Poepl 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)"

User:Cerebral Warrior and the userpage saga

People keep reverting this editors userpage. While I don't think much of the content being reverted, agreement appears to have been reached (and concensus) on the users talk page, yet evern editors involved in that formal request to User:Cerebral Warrior.

It appears that there is an edit war of sorts on that page, where people come along and revert it, and others (myself included - twice at least lol) have reverted it back to the users version (as disagreeable as I find it), because there is a WP disclaimer at the top of the page, and it is for the editor to remove on request if required, not other editors. In my understanding, the only other people that should be taking direct action on an actual userpage are admins, pending refusal to comply with the rules or formal consensus requests (a formal request and apparent agreementof sorts being in evidence on this users talk).

Please could an uninvolved admin take a look at the situation and take appropriate action to put an end to ths issue before it escalates further? thanks, --Crimsone 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The user's talk page suggests there has been some kind of agreement and things are cooling off. If that is the case, I am reluctant to stir things up. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that only admins should edit another person's userpage. All Wikipedia pages, including userpages, refeclect on Wikipedia's reputation IMO. We are here to write an encylopedia, not stir up hate or state our political opinions.If he wants to do that let him get a website - it's very easy nowdays. I believe that the userpage should go. I don't know if the consensus is with me on this, I will not act at the moment. However I urge those who are reverting the deleters to simply stop. No one has the right to say whatever they like on thier userpage, anything that inhibits conversation and compromise on articles is bad for wikipedia and hate speech does just that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. There are so many restictions on userpages already, we may as well do away with them. So let's phase them out. The next logical step in this process is to outlaw "Vanity pics". We are, indeed, here to write..not to advertise what a "cute kitty" or "bitchin car" I gotz duude. We have a firm concensus now against vanity articles, why not vanity images as well?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I meant - his userpage should go, not all of them. I think userpages can help bring a sense of community, but it's important to remember that they are given to wikipedians as a favor not a right. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Userpages only give the illusion of community and help create a false impression of what we're really here for. Policing them for inappropriate material is a drain on time and resources which could be better spent elsewhere. This isn't MySpace. But even if userpages stay, vanity pics need to go.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I should mention though that in this case, the disclaimer was added per the talk page agreement with an administrator. I happily accept what you say as the norm, but surely after administrator agreement, the both sides of the dispute should drop the issue usually? The thing is, as disagreeable as I find it, I can't bring myself to define what's currently there as hate speech. A fine line is being tread with it undoubtedly, but in the context of the disclaimer, it's not really reflecting directly on wikipedia so much either. I believe the agreement on the talk page was twofold in this respect.

Not that I'm intending to ask for views on the content that is (though undoubtedly a part of this situatition), but rather, on the disruption surrounding the issue--Crimsone 20:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Brittanica copyvio in a Wikipedia article's talk page history

Wissahickon Creek (talk · contribs) recently posted the entire contents of Brittanica's article on Alexander the Great at Talk:Alexander the Great. I've removed it as a massive copyvio, but should I also purge it from the talk page's history? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many edits to the talk page, and it's not terribly practical. We tend (for reasons unknown) to retain bad individual revisions in the history with infringing material. I guess there's WP:OVERSIGHT if you want the nuclear option.

Moving on, I am closer than this > < to disposing of Wissahickon Creek (talk · contribs) as obviously a sock, as obviously causing more trouble than good in his so-called mediation on that article, and now for illegally dumping copyrighted text into the project. Does anyone wish to save him from himself (and from me)? -Splash - tk 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

May I ask whose sock you suspect him to be? Just interested. He was certainly no newbie when he appeared on 22 October, of course, and his behaviour is certainly problematic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It'd be pure speculation if I used names, and therefore unhelpful. As you say, he is certainly no newbie and, it strikes me, has a tendency to involve him/herself in such a way as to be irritating at best. First activity was to make a stream of (repeated, dead) proposals to transform RfA. That stopped when I called him on it. -Splash - tk 21:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough - but if you're considering "disposing of" (=indef-blocking?) him, wouldn't you have to demonstrate he's actually an illegitimate sock? I.e. either of a banned user, or interacting with his puppetmaster in illegitimate ways. His behaviour otherwise may be unconstructive but in itself not really indef-bannable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is a sockpuppet and it is being in any way disruptive, it should be blocked. —Centrx→talk • 21:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am attempting to be circumspect. I think, with increasing certainty, that the user is either a)a sock of someone we already disposed of or b)is an account created to do annoying things whilst appearing to try to be helpful. In either case, my concern is that we are being trolled. Here ends my exercise in circumspection. -Splash - tk 21:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The more I look into it, the more I see that pattern too. At least one similar case comes to mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on W.C.'s sockness (although someone who edits an RfA and joins the Mediation Cabal among his first edits is obviously suspect), but I certainly agree that he's caused more trouble than good in his "mediation". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. He's also been making controversial edits and pagemoves over at Template:Europe, and accusing other users of being "edit warriors". Another user brought his sockness to my attention a couple days ago. Khoikhoi 21:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I find a problem with the header of said editor's talk page: "This is the place to talk, discuss and question my authority." He seems to have picked up Wikipedia processes (and even elaborately decorated his userpage) in a span of less than a week, which is quite strange. Thoughts, anyone? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that note is really... something. And that was his second edit on WP! ([82]) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sean Black has given him a strong warning [83] which, incidently, I think sums this nonsense up pretty nicely. --W.marsh 21:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant to call someone a sock when it is entirely unclear who he could be a sock of, but he definitely isn't your average "new" user (but he doesn't seem terribly experienced...). I've been trying to clean up the mediation case he... started and as a side checking his contributions, which are startling. Picking fights on WT:RFA, unilateral pagemoves of widely used templates, pasting a Britannica article verbatim, no concept of consensus, frequent refrains of NPOV vs POV (which he is apparently the ultimate authority on), and no understanding of mediation. I've been trying to at least enlighten him a bit as to what mediation and consensus are, but the whole process has been extremely frustrating and he keeps insisting upon his "NPOV" solution to a mediation... Blocking for disruption doesn't seem farfetched to me, but I'm clearly biased. --Keitei (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've asked him on his talkpage to give an explanation of his "sockiness". If he doesn't give a satisfactory answer, I'd support a block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think of him in terms of "sockiness." I would think in the mindset of "trollishness" instead, if either ruse can be sufficiently supported by concrete evidence. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope it's not inappropriate for me to interject here, but in addition to W.Creek there seem to be other sockpuppet(s) involved in the mediation at Talk:Alexander the Great, and I'd really appreciate it if someone took a closer look. I am a participant in the debate, and reported one suspected puppeteer/puppet duo at WP:SSP. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achaia Football Clubs Association

Many users at this discussion have come from the Greek Wikipedia to vote keep on Achaia Football Clubs Association. There have been many accusations of people being either meatpuppets or sockpuppets and it has gotten out of control. There have also been personal attacks on multiple users. It would help if an admin could sort this conflict out. T REX_speak 21:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur.Billy i.e.The Billster 22:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

See my vote on the almost deleted page to view my opinions on the subject. I will do more research, if necessary. If not necessary, please let me know.Billy i.e.The Billster 22:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys, after reflecting on the matter I've had a change of heart. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Achaia_Football_Clubs_Association

I couldn't help noticing this, since I was interested in the subject exactly above. I think it is kinda unfair to treat a team like that, no matter how un-notable it may be. I'll go ahead and vote, but you must admit there's a huge fuss about nothing. I also noticed several accusations about sockpuppets of the other side... •NikoSilver• 23:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)