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

haham hanuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Propose community ban. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) was last straw for me. To the best of my knowledge (anecdotal), HH is already banned on he:wiki. - crz crztalk 16:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Got a bit narky with User:Yanksox on Yanksox's talk page about an article he deleted. Then it seems that Haham tried to get the guideline everyone referred to in the AfD deleted? Excellent. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually I think it'd be better to send this to be dealt by ArbCom instead. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • W/ such an extensive block log, i also agree. -- Szvest 17:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}
  • I can't speak about his/her past history, but I don't see a violation of rules or guidelines recently. I would not endorse a ban. --Nlu (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • With that many block log entries... I think we can all agree he violated the rules numerous times. I really question whether or not recentness really matters... very few repeated rules violaters ever clean up their act and stop being a pain in the ass. Opinionated users remain opinionated, and this guy repeatedly goes around his blocks to continue his ranting. I think I'm gonna have to support an RFAr if one is put forth.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering I was the closing admin on that guideline MFD, I also support sending Haham hanuka to ArbCom. --Coredesat 20:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Community patience has been worn out, but I do endorse taking this to Arbcom. Yanksox 14:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that haham hanuka has been indefinitely blocked from the Hebrew Wikipedia. The protected user page reads: "haham hanuka is an internet troll... El_C 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support a possible Arb, though I'd have to see the evidence to really see if it was possible. It's annoying how he comes along every few weeks to attempt to whitewash the Adolf Hitler article, then disappears with nary a word. However, the block log is poor evidence for a community ban, as he hasn't been blocked in four months. --Golbez 16:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I support an Arbcom. He recently twice deleted part of the Yigal Amir article (second time even using the edit summary rv trolling! [1]) even though there was a consensus to keep that part. I did not have time, energy and interest in reporting him so no further action were taken. I want to enjoy myself more while I am here. He also keeps watering down articles on Hitler and the Holocaust. In general he pays no respect to community decisions and consensus. gidonb 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, the talk page of that article contains a lot of information about the user. gidonb 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So, now that it seems that the consensus is to go to arbitration, who's going to officially file the request? Scobell302 04:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Any user may request arbitration; you don't have to be an involved party. Dmcdevit·t 06:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

SPUI.. again

How does everyone feel about a community ban on SPUI? After two blocks for adding the SQUIDWARD edit summaries he stopped. But as soon as he returned, he was blocked for 31 hours for a 3RR violation. It's becoming very obvious that he is coming to Wikipedia to disrupt with every edit he makes and not to contribute positively. semper fi — Moe 19:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All prior warnings, notices, and recommendations that he stop become covered by an admin. Yes, you can revert so that it is visible, but when its been covered several times, recovering becomes an incredible hassle. Looking at his block log and his recent edits, it seems as if he does not want to constructively contribute to Wikipedia after "leaving." How many "second chances" must we give this destructive user? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. He's had too many chances. --Kbdank71 19:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see SPUI community-banned. He's made a lot of good encyclopedic edits, and I think he's a good user. OK, so he had a moment of madness, but he's a decent editor, IMHO. --SunStar Net 19:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

God let's end this already. Yes, he was a very prolific contributer, but I don't think he's here to be constructive anymore. Also, all my recent real-life experiences tell me that I would rather have someone who contributes less but doesn't cause any trouble, than someone like this. Grandmasterka 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

His 3RR block is kind of odd. He reverted the featured article of the day 4 times by removing what he considered was unsourced original research, and then reported himself on the en-wiki mailing list. Thatcher131 19:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing his recent 3RR block as typical of any past disruption he may have been involved with is not fair, IMO. Even the best editors go into 3RR from time to time, and this specific instance involved enforcing the Wikipedia original research policy on the article that sat on the front page all day. Whether he's exhausted the community's patience, I have no real input on, although I think he does valuable work here. But let's not try to frame this specific instance from yesterday as part of anything greater than what it was. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)...or as Thatcher said above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose community banning. SPUI deserves an RFC to start with anyway, not some AN/I discussion. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 19:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

We tried that. Others came and defended him, ignoring the evidence. WP:RFC/SPUI --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The current popular principle behind a community block is that if no admin will unlbock then the block was probably OK. That isn's going to hapen with SPUI.Geni 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose community ban. He is hardly contributing and not really a problem now. If he is indefblocked for something he has recently done, I will unblock him after a reasonable amount of time. Kusma (討論) 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because he's hardly contributing doesn't mean he hasn't been a problem. Ever since the beginning of October he has been a problem. Lets look at the facts shall we:

• October 12-13 he edits with SQUIDWARD summaries: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

He recieves a block: 03:41, 14 October 2006 Lar (Talk contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 15 minutes (Please stop SQUIDWARDing...)

• He returns October 23/24 to edit with the SQUIDWARD summaries again: [7] [8]

Blocked again: 05:19, 24 October 2006 Konstable (Talk | contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 hours (again, please stop SQUIDWARDing)

• He returns on November 3-5 to edit V for Vendetta (film) and it's talk: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Blocked again: 03:35, 5 November 2006 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Violation of 3RR)

Literally the only edit he hasn't been blocked for in the last month is blanking his talk page with an Image of a duck. semper fi — Moe 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sad, isn't it? Apparently as long as you have some good contributions, you get to act however you want, and your admirers, defenders, whatever, will at best hand out a series of 24 hour (or less) blocks, and at worst, ignore the behavior completely. Can anyone explain why this has been allowed to continue? --Kbdank71 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Because he's made 74,000 contributions. Of which 40,000 are probably controversial page moves which have been corrected by new

guidelines now.. :\ semper fi — Moe 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and we have no real method of knowing which contributions are constructive. The page moves did nothing but create mass controversy and led many editors to quit in disgust. It's even worse when one or two admins reverted his blocks because he was such a good editor. I'll repeat what Lar spoke of during some controversy that SPUI created: "No one editor is indispensable to the project." If SPUI becomes a nuisance, then he should not be able to contribute in that manner; yes, he made good edits, but so have we, and the project continues forward. Whether or not we have SPUI is irrelevant; there will always be other editors to take his place, as clearly demonstrated today. After his "leave", we still have editors on road topics throughout all 50 states that do fine without SPUI. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because we're here to contribute? On a more serious note, I don't see what exactly is bannable here. Prior to the V 3RR thing, he got blocked for using weird edit summaries on edits that either attempted to remove OR marginally-encyclopedic material or were RfA votes. His second block was for squidward edit summaries on two talk pages. How is this significantly more grounds for banning than using no summary at all? Are people that bothered to see "squidward" on the RC list twice in two days (in latter case)? I agree with Jeff on the description of the V incident. --user:Qviri 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to review all of his prior blocks to get a good idea of how much he's gotten away with... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

SQUIDWARD! is the name fast-pace vandal. The vandal generally gave the edit summary SQUIDWARD! as he was vandalizing. SPUI copyign that was inappropriate, whether he was vandalizing or not. semper fi — Moe 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's because the case is not made at present. If the guy is reporting himself for 3RR, then it may be WP:POINT, but it's hardly serial disruption. Basically, we can't see how he's going to behave after the last block. He has built up a lot of animosity from some people, and they're very ready to get the gallows ready, but I don't see him currently earning the noose. I think it has to be an unrepentant pattern, and the only unrepenting problem was the edit summaries, and now he's repented. Geogre 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR may not be serial disruption. What would you call the remainder of his block log? And so what if he's repented? Maybe it's just me, but to see problem, repent, problem, repent, problem, repent, would seem to indicate we have a problem with more than just SPUI. Look, I make no assumptions that this will go anywhere; as I said, there are too many people willing to overlook too much. --Kbdank71 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a serial disruption when SPUI was disrupting page after page with his own naming conventions. It's been done in the past, which should not be overlooked. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely: it should not be overlooked, and I wouldn't advocate turning the other way. The question isn't, I hope, all or nothing. I just didn't see anything going on since that nasty episode. If it does, I'll be on board with a community ban, but I think community bans should be when the other person isn't acting out of an interpretation of what's best for Wikipedia. When the other person is misinterpreting or being petulant about their views of policy and practice, ArbCom's deliberative process should be best. When a person is just exhausting everyone by insisting after a clearly settled issue or pride or a desire to play gotcha with someone or a desire to settle political scores (real life ones, like the nationalists and monomaniacs), then it's community patience. That's my view, anyway. Geogre 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's my take on the situation. Give him a block that will actually prevent him from disrupting (a few days or so). See how he acts then. If he socks during, or continues acting up after, then I think that should remove some doubt. --InShaneee 03:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah why not? A community ban for a few days? Or a week? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A short block with the intention if we can bait a user into sockpuppeting is not something I could ever support. However, a permanent community ban for SPUI, who has committed many, many times more infractions and disruptions than plenty of other permabanned users, has ignored countless requests, decisions and judgements, and is bizarrely and inexplicably supported by some admins (is he nice to them on IRC?), and has driven good editors away from Wikipedia, is something I would get behind. This needs to go to ArbCom, and this needs to be resolved. Proto::type 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose any community ban through ANI. This better be taken through an RfC. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Note, it's been taken through RfC before... He's exhausted all of our patience, and its senseless to keep taking it to ANI, RfC, etc. if the outcome is going to be the same: status quo. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a short block would solve either. While I've given SPUI blocks in the past to try to get him to stop being disruptive, maybe those just don't work with him. On the other hand I DO think he adds value and would hate to see him permanently banned. Is there nothing else? No other way to reach him and get at whatever the root issue is? I guess I am more willing than some to keep trying with SPUI. But in the end Wikipedia is not... a lot of things, including a selfhelp org for those that don't want to change, or a babysitting service, or a group therapy session, or a twelve step program, among others. If there is no change possible then, so be it. One more chance maybe but, really, no more. (as an aside, I totally reject the notion Badlydrawnjeff advances above, that "even the best editors go into 3RR sometimes" I've never, ever, ever done that...) ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I longer short block than before would accomplish something in the fact that it would actually prevent him from doing something, whereas the previous blocks of a few minutes/hours it has been suggested he may not have even noticed (I did not mean to 'draw out' sockpuppets as suggested above; I merely meant that a preventative block must actually prevent something to be effective). --InShaneee 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. He needs to be banned. Now. ANYONE who has the mentality that they can do whatever the hell want, like SPUI clearly does, should be blocked. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 12:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok... so when the huge edit war over road names he was involved with wound up with a decision he opposed being forced through in unusual circumstances despite a lack of true consensus (again, there were reasons this had to be done and as one of the people who backed it I am here criticizing myself) the 'massively disruptive' reaction he had was to continue making valid contributions, but using the edit summary "SQUIDWARD". For this heinous crime he was blocked... twice. Then, when asked to stop using such summaries... he did! Dastardly. Instead, he went and explained that he was making changes to a new page to remove original research... some sort of theory about how the 'V' in 'V for Vendetta' was probably a reference to the roman numeral for five. That looks like original research to me. Removing it with explanatory edit summaries was therefor... proper. Edit warring when it was re-inserted was not, but seems hardly grounds for a community ban. It seems to me that SPUI is giving his detractors thin pretexts to demonstrate their bias and animosity towards him... and they are happily obliging. SPUI is not being a model Wikipedian, but as reactions to brow-beating and tossing consensus out the window go this isn't exactly the end of the world. --CBD 16:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree CBD. We shouldn't be simply community ban someone for a 3RR or for a few mild edit summaries, but when is enough, enough? His edits aren't as much as the problem as the attitude and straight-fowardness of his edits. It's not that his edits are wrong, but he pushes the issue until his opposition either gives up or a third party gets involved or blocks him. Really how many things has he done that has gotten himself blocked over his time on Wikipedia. Just to name a few:

• Moving Highway articles a lot
• Move warring
• 3RR violations
• Incivilty
• POINT violations
• Blatant vandalism
• Disruption
• personal attacks
• Copyright violations
• Testing Wikipedia's browser blocking code on User:SPUI/jajaja
• per ArbCom decisions for putting pro-pedophile userboxes on his userpage
• Probation violations
• SQUIDWARD! edit summaries

Again, he may not be wrong, but the way he edits is disruptive and non-helpful. It's not a question anymore of how useful or correct he was a year ago or a few months ago as some people agrue. We have community banned former administrators before. SPUI has made several useful contributions before, no question, but so have other banned editors. How far do we push each ourselves with SPUI? How far before we say 'enough'? semper fi — Moe 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You ask 'how far'. My standard is quite simple... 'has it reached the point where it seems clear this user will never be a positive contributor'? I look at 'squidward', a 3RR violation in pursuit of 'no original research', and ducks in a pram and see 'silly git'... not 'irrational monster beyond all hope of redemption'. Everything else you list up there is what, months old? And many of them seemed, to me, as much over-reactions and misrepresentations as the accusations of 'blatant vandalism' which accompanied his silly 'squidward' edit summaries (despite no vandalism actually being involved). To put it another way... SPUI made positive contributions, but put a silly 'squidward' edit summary on them. He was then falsely accused of vandalism and a community ban called for. His reaction? He issued no personal attacks, made no disruptive edits, and stopped using the silly edit summary. Where I come from that's called a phenomenal improvement in behaviour compared to the SPUI from months back you describe above. So where the indication that he is a bad bad man who will never do any good? --CBD 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I rephrase my question. It's been over one month since he has contributed without getting blocked. How long do we put up with his nonsense before he becomes a 'positive' contributor again? semper fi — Moe 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your framing assumes that blocks for 'squidward' edit summaries were valid. I don't believe they were. 'How long without being blocked' isn't much of a standard when blocks are placed for things which represent no real 'damage' or 'disruption' to Wikipedia at all. To my way of thinking, SPUI has made exactly ONE block-worthy edit in that time period... his fourth revert on the 'V' original research. --CBD 19:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason the blocks for the squidward edit summaries may not have been valid is because he was never warned about it. After sternly warned, yes, he stopped. But does that excuse him from copying the well-known vandal edit-summary? If I suddenly started using those edit summaries and continued after a block (and yes SPUI did), would that not be disruption? semper fi — Moe 22:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The other concern is that he has chased many users away from Wikipedia (names can be provided on request) directly or indirectly because of his actions. And made the highways area an unpleasant place to work. Also, SPUI has not made any uncontroversial mainspace edits in over two months (uncontroversial excluding SQUIDWARD or the 3RR). Not that that necessarily mounts to anything however.... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And in the realm of the truly bizzare...its either a sockpuppet or a fanboy here. Though why be either, I haven't a clue. pschemp | talk 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Bushcarrot (talk · contribs). —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well, then. Are we going to continue to argue or actually do something here? // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 04:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we vote? Have a more formal discussion? There is no clear-cut answer here, unless we send this to ArbCom. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is here. It is really quite easy to not be disruptive. He has had more than 50 chances to do it over the course of a year and a half. —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then who will hit the block button if it is to be done? Discussing it and doing nothing else doesn't help. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who will block him, because someone like CBD will come along and unblock him. Look at his block log; just a series of blocks and unblocks. I'm not going to be the one to start a wheel-war with people who look at his attitude and say, "Eh, it's not THAT bad. Why, 50% of his contributions are completely uncontroversial! What are you all complaining about?" Until someone like Jimbo puts his foot down, SPUI will continue to act like he does, half of you will continue waste your time to undo his shenanigans and argue for his permablock, and the other half will waste their time arguing why he should stay and unblocking any errant blocks. Don't you think all this wasted time could be spent better elsewhere? --Kbdank71 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is...if someone's going to inappropriately wheel war...then we can't block appropriately. --InShaneee 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is I'm not going to waste my time blocking SPUI just to see someone unblock him. You can wheel war over him until the cows come home if you think it'll do some good. --Kbdank71 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone wheel wars, it should be dealt with. In the meantime, that shouldn't prevent us from making legitimate blocks. It's like saying, "Why bother writing articles, they'll just be vandalized." --InShaneee 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So our options at this point are to a) block or b) send this to RFC or ArbCom. Meanwhile, nothing is getting done. As I was involved in the ArbCom stuff it would be conflict of interest to block so in reality I can't. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, and will say again, to make the message clear... ban ban ban ban ban ban ban. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but we might as well take it back to ArbCom. It should not be "300 strikes and you're out", and he's been blocked enough times to make anyone realize that he isn't going to do much of anything that's actually constructive. I'm not 100% sure ArbCom would be able to solve the problem, because they've dealt with him before, and he doesn't seem to have any respect for their decisions. It could still be worth trying, since ArbCom could just decide to indefblock/ban him. An ArbCom block/ban would be less likely to result in a wheel war. --Coredesat 00:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this matter can be handled without involving ArbCom. The terms are simple: I think we are all agreed that his behavior needs to improve, that he needs to make a serious & sincere effort at playing by the rules; the disagreement appears to be whether he can be convinced to improve or that he is beyond all hope & we have no choice other than to ban him from Wikipedia. As constructive as he might be (I haven't followed his edits, but for the sake of argument let's say he is), if SPUI -- or any Wikipedian -- is being disruptive to the point that he has received multiple blocks yet no one cares enough to intervene & save him from a permanent ban, then the community has made its decision & clearly wants him gone. So is there anyone who is working with SPUI offline from Wikipedia with the aim of improving his behavior & avoid having him banned from this project & losing his constructive contributions? If there is, I hope that would be enough to convince the "Ban SPUI" faction to have some patience & give him one more -- even if it is only his last -- chance. If there is not, & no one is willing to volunteer to help SPUI from being banned, then it's hard not to conclude that the proper solution is a Community Ban. All it would take is for one person to volunteer to work with him to keep him; otherwise, silence is consent & it's clear, despite what some may say, everyone wants him gone. -- llywrch 01:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am more than willing to assist SPUI in becoming a constructive editor here again as long as he doesn't continue with his extreme forms of silliness. As long as he is willing to be a positive contributor, we can always use another hand on Wikipedia. But this my only offer to help the guy, if he continues being disruptive, I'm not going to be as helpful the next go-around. semper fi — Moe 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SPUI can be banned by any administrator from any area he disrupts. If he does not comply with the ban he may be blocked. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation. Any administrator may do this. Fred Bauder 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. We still have the option of banning rather than blocking. Banning being "you can't edit this article anymore because you've disrupted it." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that CBD's summary of the cause of the current situation is very apt. The 'highways' situation became extremely unpleasant -- SPUI was basically at one point being told that not only would he be sanctioned for not abiding by a non-consensus decision, but that he'd be sanctioned for pointing out that it was a non-consensus decision. (Admittedly he was pointing it out rather frequently, but when a bare majority is repeatedly mischaracterised as a "consensus", a certain feeling of frustration is somewhat understandable.) There's been lots of nonsense and silliness from SPUI before (I've been on the end of a small portion of it myself), but this seems to me to be different. This is sheer surmise and speculation, take it for what it's worth, but it appears to me more that he essentially quit the project over that issue, but due to on-going wikidiction and/or wishing to express residual resentment, isn't quite able to go "cold turkey", and so is making periodic forays back. I'm not especially hopeful this will end well, and in the circumstances, I doubt that "area bans" will be at all useful (since if I'm correct, it'll just force him to find other ways to vent, which he'll rise to the challenge of). I'd urge the community not to take any far-reaching steps just at the moment, but if he doesn't knock it on the head immediately, I'd be in favour of a "medium length" block (a week to a month or two, say) to stop him digging himself in yet deeper in the meantime. Alai 08:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would have thought mentorship would be a solution, in a way. --SunStar Net 11:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Motion to ban SPUI

I have made a motion to ban SPUI for a year at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#SPUI Fred Bauder 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this. If I had to "learn" to behave myself then so should he have. He's had his 1,000 chances and now should cool his heels for a bit. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 04:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have opposed this there, for what it's worth. SPUI can't be banned for a year by that arbitration committee ruling until he has been blocked justifiably under its probation restrictions five times. I count four, at least one of which I feel was unjustifiable. I also feel there is not consensus for a community ban; there is, from what I see, considerable clamor for one, but also some opposition. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, as long as SPUI watches it and contributes productively I have no problems with him around. Actions such as the Squidward edit summaries will result in an immediate block from me though. In short, as long as SPUI doesn't mess around, I welcome him here. If he wants to be disruptive, then we have to think about measures. Let's not jump the gun here -- Tawker 09:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've found that in most cases once SPUI is blocked once or twice about an issue he stops doing it. The sole exception was what he got an arbcom ruling about - edit warring about highway names (in other words, a genuine content difference, not the silly provocation of most of the other stuff).

We should also be cautious about baiting someone under probation and blocking him for things that if other editors did them would not be blockable offenses. I've on occasion noted a way of thought that goes, "SPUI is a troll, therefore ..." Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So in reality, we're back to where we started. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to ban SPUI for a year at this time. I still remain hopeful. If ArbCom so rules I'd be disappointed. ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The concern is we've said that so many times, giving SPUI slack, and he then takes it and runs. If any of us had done all that SPUI did... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose until a suitable replacement is found. —freak(talk) 00:53, Nov. 12, 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but damn it would be disappointing to see SPUI go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) [15].

Oppose. SPUI, no doubt, deserves banning - but, since we don't do punitive, what he deserves is beside the point. I'm convinced that it is not in Wikipedia's interests to ban him, per this wisdom from an unlikely source.--Doc^g 01:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Flat out oppose per the reasoning of Bastique should have an RFC and I see no community concensus for banning and agree it is not in the communities interests to do so.--Dakota 06:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

One CFD withdrawn needs closing, other CFDs apparent bad faith by User:Jc37

I would like help to sort out a problem which has arisen at CFD. (I am an admin myself, but cannot act as an admin in this instance, because I am actively involved).

My editing focuses on Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom, and on their constituencies. After some category restructuring (see Category talk:British MPs#Restructuring_again.2C_now_largely_done), I thought that some category renaming would be appropriate, and made a series of suggestions at Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring. I made the suggestions there rather than launch straight into a CFD, because my experience of CFD is that it can easily become conflictual and unwieldy if the range of options for consideration has not been discussed beforehand. My aim was not to somehow stitch up the CFD, but rather to try to clarify the issues by considering them without a CFD deadline looming. (I have seen previous CFDs in this area closed with a referral back to category talk, so it seemed sensible to try that before CFD rather than after).

That proposal was made on 4 November 2006, and I drew its existence to the attention of some editors who I know to be active in the area. My intention was to let the discssion run for a week or two, to help maximise consusus, before proceeding to CFD. (At time of writing 4 replies, all supporting my proposals)

On November 5th, one of those categories was nominated for CFD (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 5#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_English_constituencies) by User:Smerus, who was evidently unaware of the discussion at category talk. This CFD was brought to my attention on 6th November (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Jumping_the_gun), and it nominated only one of the categories, with a rename different to those discussed in category talk. (Smerus proposed renaming ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament representing English constituencies; my proposal was a rename to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:UK MPs for English constituencies).

At 10:04, I responded at the CFD by pointing out the earlier discusson, and asking the nominator to withdraw the proposal so that we coukd create a new CFD including both options. Smerus kindly agreed to this at 16:21 UTC, and I created the new CFD tonight (see WP:CFD#National sub-categories of Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament). I would like to stress that I have no complaint at all against Smerus, who has been civil and helpful and sought to resolve problems to seek a consensus, and who actions all show good faith.

However, in the meantime, at 11:13, User:Jc37 nominated the remaining categories, but proposed only the format offered by [[User:Smerus]. When I returned, I accepted Smerus's offer to withdraw, and created the new CFD at WP:CFD#National_sub-categories_of_Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament.

However, user Jc37 objects to the withdrawal, and at 00:42, 7 November 2006 says he/she wants only Smerus's proposal to be considered; only if it fails, should the earlier proposal be considered. (see Smerus's CFD and my new CFD, 00:32, 7 November 2006).

This seems to be to be silly at best, and destuctive at worst: the nominator has agreed to a new CFD to consider both options. That CFD has been created. The best-considered discussion is surely likely to be reached when all relevant options are on the table, from the outset.

Requested action: please can an admin close Smerus's CFD, since the nomination has been withdrawn in favour of a later CFD.

However, it didn't end there :(

Having been notified of the earlier discussion at Category talk:British MPs, Jc37 then listed the three other categories for renaming, without listing the proposal originally discussed: see British female MPs, Current British MPs.

In subsequent comments at 00:46, 7 November 2006 and 00:42, 7 November 2006, Jc37 has refused requests to withdraw these nominations and called for another admin to be involved.

Jc37 has stated repeatedly that he/she opposes the use of abbreviations in the category names, and whatever its merits that is an entirely legitimate objection. However, the way in which these nominations have been made appears to have been designed to prevent or hinder consideration of all the options, and subsequent unwillingness to resove the situation reinforces that view.

I assumed good faith, but since Jc37 has insisted that it is preferable to run a CFD without including the earlier options, I can only conclude that the aim in the second batch of discussions was to bypass ongoing discussions about the names of these categories, by using the CFD process to trump attempts to explore the issue and seek consensus. JC37 refuses to continue discussion, and has suggested admin intervention (see comment at 00:42, 7 November 2006). I would have prefrred to continue discussion, but that has apparently been refused. In other circumstances I would Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Second_step:_Disengage_for_a_while, but since a CFD process is underway, disengagement is a poor option.

Requested action: please can an admin close the CFDs at British female MPs, Current British MPs as bad faith nominations, and ask all editors concerned to discuss the issues further at Category talk:British MPs and to return to CFD with a set of proposals which relects all the options for which there is support.

I feel strongly that it would set a very bad precedent for these nominations to continue: if CFD can be used used as a mechanism to disrupt and bypass consensus-seeking discussions, then there ill be a clear disincentive to discuss category changes before moving to CFD. That will only make for more confrontational CFDs, poorer decision-making, and a much harder job for the admins who monitor and close CFDs.

While I await admin response, I will go ahead and make counter-proposals to these CFDs. However, even after making the counter-proposals, I would still prefer the CFDs to be closed. Some participants have already made their recommendations without

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a totally unacceptable request and I suggest it is made in bad faith simply because BrownHairedGirl is worried that she will lose the debate on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. There has recently been strong interest in removing gender categories for politicians on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. BrownHairGirl seems to feel that when the proper forum for discussing categories (guess why it is called "categories for discussion"?) is not getting the results she wants the proper procedures should be voided in favour of a forum where she feels more confident of getting her way. I suggest that she should be reprimanded for making false allegations of bad faith. Piccadilly 01:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Piccadilly, that is utter nonsense, as would be abundantly clear to anyone who does some minimal reading. I have no objection to anyone nominating a category for deletion, and while I would query the usefulness of a CFD on the female MP categories when there was a previous unsuccesful proposal only three months ago. I have not objected in these CFDs to the nomination to delete the categories (I recommend against, but I have not objected to that aspect of the nomination).

BrownHairedGirl that is utter nonsense. You have objected to use use of cfd and are continuing to do so. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read my complaint above before launching into a personal atatck, or botgered to to read the discussion at Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring, or to read my contributions to the CFDs, you will see that I am not calling for an abandonment of the CFD, simply for a CFD which does not try to exclude options on which a consensus had been developed at category talk.

Drawing attention to your bad faith actions and attempts to intimidate other users, which have since got worse with the deletion of my comments on cfd, is not a personal attack, it is a public duty. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Piccadilly, your allegation was based on the assunption that I did not want a CD to trakr place. That is false, as you can see from reading the CFDs. Your new allegation of intimidation is thefefore just more nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not try, and have not tried, to void one forum in favour of another: if you read what I wrote above, I said "My aim was not to somehow stitch up the CFD, but rather to try to clarify the issues by considering them without a CFD deadline looming. (I have seen previous CFDs in this area closed with a referral back to category talk, so it seemed sensible to try that before CFD rather than after)."

When you have tried to stitch up cfd, saying "My aim was not to somehow stitch up the CFD" does not make you innocent. Just the same as when one has robbed a bank saying, "My aim was not to rob the bank" does not make one innocent. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

For goodness sake, I have not tried to stich it up! How on earth is a stitch up to ask that all options be presented from the outset, and that an editot should not attempt to bounce an existing discussion by taking part of it and rushing off with a different CFD which excludes the option to have achieved coinsensus so far? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

All I want is a CFD with a set of proposals which relects all the options for which there is identifiable support, rather one lodged. Do you oppose that? A discussion at category talk cannot make a decision, and it cannot replace CFD. However, it can help to clarify the issues, and to allow users to define which options are useful to bring to CFD.

The proposals you present are too complex. If one wanted to be cynical one might suggest that you are trying to make things so hard to follow that few people will have the time to choose any option other than nodding them through or ignoring the discussion. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

These categories are complex: there are a bundle of related categories involved. Why do you want editors to vite without being aware of all the issues? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what your motive is, Piccadilly, but your comment here is is either gravely mistaken or thoroughly malicious. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been caught out misbehaving grievously. I came here solely to defend an innocent user with whom I have no connection who has been maligned by you. You need to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility and stop acting like you own Wikipedia's coverage of British MPs. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion for some time and am AMAZED by the consistent patience, forbearance and industry of User:BrownHairedGirl. - Kittybrewster 17:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed at the unscrupulous methods she is prepared to use to impose her will. She has had the gall to delete my comments on cfd, which is about as clear-cut as bad faith can get. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is unscrupulous about asking for a CFD which includes from the outset all the options which editors want to discuss, in partiular those which had achieved support in a live discussion at category talk before th nomination was made? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"All the options" is an interesting statement. It sounds like you feel that you won't be "heard". What was stopping you from joining in the CfD discussions, rather than rather petulently (I apologise, but I'm having a hard time seeing it any other way atm) disregarding the noms except to dismiss them as unwanted? The mere fact that after several hours "away from your computer", you still chose to not join in the discussion, and start your counter nomination (pointing out that the previous nom was on the 5th, my additional noms were on the 6th, and her counter noms was on the 7th). And I have to admit, I'm starting to find the continued use of "bad-faith nomination" a bit irksome, especially when I consider the circumstances of your attempt at a separate duplicate/subsequent/alternative nomination. Anyway, I'll continue my thoughts below. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what needs to be done in three sentences or less? --Kbdank71 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes!

• Requested action: please can an admin close Smerus's CFD, since the nomination has been withdrawn in favour of a later CFD.
• Requested action: please can an admin close the CFDs at British female MPs, Current British MPs as bad faith nominations, and ask all editors concerned to discuss the issues further at Category talk:British MPs and to return to CFD with a set of proposals which relects all the options for which there is support.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There's that "bad-faith nomination" comment again. I even split the nomination at the request of another user. I feel I've been amenable, helpful and communicative. So I feel such an attack is unwarranted. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

General response

Well, wow. This is apparently what I get for being away from Wikipedia for a couple days?

I'm rather stunned at BrownHairedGirl's accusations, I suppose I shouldn't be, but I am nonetheless.

I think the easiest way to respond would be to show a "timeline", and go from there.

First, take a moment and read: User talk:BrownHairedGirl#CFD for MPs from English constituencies. (I'll be referring to it, but for space reasons, am deciding to not repaste it all here. If diffs are still requested, I suppose I can build a list.) I pasted her initial post from my talk page, and my response, to her talk page.

• Her post time: 10:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• My response: 10:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Her response: 10:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• My next response resulted in an edit conflict with Mai Oui!, whose response was at: 10:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ; while mine was at: 11:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• And then I responded to Mai Oui's comment at: 11:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice the immediacy of the discussion to that point. After that point, no responses whatsoever. I offered to list the rest of the nominations (since "someone else" had already listed a couple of categories that apparently she had made a plan for). I did so, and finished the nominations, though, as I mentioned, I didn't agree with the MP abbreviation, and noted the already existing nominations used "representing" rather than for or from, and so I nominated the rest based on the previsous nom's precedent.

(interjection) But you didn't menton that the discussion at catehory talk was entirely in suppot of the abbbgreviations, and you didn't mention the abbreviations as an option, and you didn't include a link to the discussions at category talk. Basically, you were pointed to an existing discussion n a naming structure, saw that there was agreement for a particular format, and instead of exploring whay that structure was preferred, decided that you liked a different one, so set out to bypass the existing discussin by making a CFD which excluded the opotion prefered by other editors. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(continued interjection) And you didn't mention that the discussion consisted of you and one or two other people. The concern by Mai Oui! was length of the name, and I never saw a support of MP as accurate. So I think a concern about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) is a valid concern. While Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) suggests that such abbreviations are fine in article text (though MP is not one of those listed), Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer spelled-out phrases to acronyms says rather clearly that abbreviations should not be used in names. See also the even more specific Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms). In order to cite WP:IAR, one needs a reason, and name length is not a valid reason from what I have read. All that aside, What I also did was link to all relevant discussions in my nominations. There was full transparency to my actions. (Continuing on below.) - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

First: there were four contributors to that discussion, not "one or two".

OK, you had a concern about abbreviations. But did first you looked at the wrong guidelines: those guidelines are about naming articles, but what we are discussing here is categories. The relevant one guideline is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), which depreactes abbreviations, but also says "Avoid names that are too long or too short. Short, simple names are preferred for categories"

Did you raise that concern in the discussion? No. You ignored the discussion and the long history behind it which coukd have been shown if you had asked, and went straight to CFD.

And you didn't link o the discussion. You linked to the talk page, rather than to the discussion. (It's a long talk page, and readers are unlikely to raed through all of it to find he relevant bit) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And now we begin with a question of what's "true" in accusatory statements. sigh.

Please take a moment and go look at the links. First, I did link to the discussion [16], not to your talk page. Second, when I did link to your talk page, I actually linked to exactly where the discussion was on your talk page (through the use of "#") See my comments atthis CfR. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Jc37, please read the diff you posted. As you'll see from the cnxt above, I as referring to Category talk, not user talk. The link you posted in that diff is to Category talk:British MPs, rather than to the relevant discussion at Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring. (The discussion on my talk page was short and procedural: the substantive discussion on the rationale for the new, shorter category names, was at Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only didn't I receive a response about them, but I didn't receive a response at all, for quite some time.

(interjection) Indeed. Because I was not a my computer, as you see from my contribs log. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, your first action, after 11+ hours of being away from your computer, rather than continue the discussion on your talk page, which above you've stated was where you feel that the current consensus was, instead was to immediately start a CfD draft in your sandbox [17], then to comment to others that you were drafting such a proposal, and then to propose it. If you were acting in such good faith, I would have presumed that you might have at least done as I did, and commented on your talk page about it. That you didn't, and that you rushed to pursue your counter nomination... Well, considering how loudly you've called my nominations "bad-faith noms", I wonder if actually your counter nomination was such a one. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

JC37, the nominator of that CFD had already kindly agreed to withdraw in favour of a new joint nomination. The longer I let that new nomination, the more likely it was that more people would spend time to a CD that was going. That's why the new CFD hads to be the first step. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The way that reads to me is that you felt that you had to rush your counter nomination because you felt that the people commenting at the existing CfDs needed the guidance of your new CfD? I would presume that's what comments in an existing CfD are for, which, again, you were welcome to do. FYI, as far as I can tell, you just stated that your nomination was a POV nomination. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it was not until after BrownHairedGirl had nominated a separate set of nominations on the following day, and my subsequent responses to them, that she said anything at all.

(interjection) Jc37, that's a neatly incomplete summary, isn't it?

If you read the CFD, you'll see that

• The nomination was made by Smerus at 20:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• At 10:04, 6 November 2006 , I posted to opoose the nomination and note an earlier discussion, and asked the nominator to withdraw
• At 10:20, 6 November 2006, I added a further comment, noting the need to include the other categs, and the support for a "shorter consistent naming structure" (the nomination would increase the length of already over-long category names).

I then posted a message to each of the contributors to the CFD, pointing out the existence of an ongoing discussion at category talk.

• Jc37 replied, noting that while the agreement at category talk was for shorter names, Jc37 disagreed. I replied, noting the need for consistency;
• Shortly afterwrds, I left my computer for the day (last contrib 11:01), and did not return until to wkipedia until late in the evening: see my contribs.

• I saw that there was more discussion on my talk, but finding nothing from Smerus, my first priority was to go to the CFD to see if Smerus had agreed to withdraw the CFD. He had, so I created the new CFD and thanked him. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• So what you're saying is that you were uninterested in any other discussion except the hope that someone had withdrawn their nomination so that you could go forth with yours, and ignored entirely that not all nominations had been withdrawn? Wow. Also, AFAIK, once nominated, the nominator can attempt to withdraw the nomination, but the CfD remains open until an uninvolved admin decides that there is consensus to close. (For example, if the nominator had suggested rename, and the commentors all said delete, and the nominator attempts to withdraw the nom to avoid deletion, the closing admin has the discernment to note that, and choose to close or leave open based on that.) I don't believe that Smerus's nomination was clear-cut at that point, and so closing as a withdraw would seem to me to be pre-mature. (And an excuse to post the counter nomination.)- jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that it is in the right of a nominator to withdraw their nomination, and that had been done. Your addition of subsequent categories didn't alter that. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You continue to try to cast a pe-existing proposal as a counter-nomination, and to steadfastly oppose any attempt to discuss it. Wjy this insistence on jumping in on a existing discission, rushing the ategories concerbed to CFD, and then ejecting efforts to having the original categories propsal discussed too?

I have not any point suggested that your noninatons should not be duscussed, simply that you should place them alongside the other options. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The only one "rushing" was you. I actually was discussing with you and Mai Oui, and nominated the cats out of that discussion. I don't see that you did so as well. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How on earth was I rsuhing? You nominated ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British female MPs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Current British MPs etc, without posting anything to the discussion at category talk, ithout aiting to hear why the shorter anmes were favoured, and you even nominated one category for a new title which would clearly be factually wrong. :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

At that point, I started to try to discuss with her, but after seeing the situation, I decided that the best idea would be to suggest that a non-involved admin sort it all out.

Since then, I've not been on Wikipedia (for unrelated RL reasons). And apparently she's attempted to "clarify" / "modify" the previous nominations. I am still not certain why she has such a problem with allowing the nominations as listed, and suggesting her changes once they were finished, if she feels so stongly about it.

Anyway, At this point, I'm not going to presume what to think about this. What I'd like to see is the original nominations be "un-modified", and run their course, and the "duplicate" nomination re-listed once they are done. However, this is now a mess, since several people have already voted in the duplicate nomination, and with her "modifications", the existing noms would seem to be a mess now as well.

I wish whoever deals with this a lot of luck and discernment : ) - jc37 10:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: As far as I can tell, all the categories in question were tagged either by the original nomination, or by me. I don't believe that BrownHairedGirl updated any of the tags for her duplicate/subsequent nomination. - jc37 10:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the easiest thing to do would be close ALL of the nominations right now as duplicates of each other, and the two of you can get together and nominate them again, without any other nominations getting in the way and confusing me. Would either of you have a problem with that? --Kbdank71 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kbdank71, that's fine by me, as long as there is some discussion first to ensure that the nominations start off by all offering the various options for which there is obviously some support, and that they include the relevant sub-categories (I'm not sure that any of the existing nominations are complete). I suggest that rather than discuss it in user space, that the discussions should take place at Category talk:British MPs. I hope that's acceptable to everyone.

I should stress that I'm not suggesting any sort of stitch-up or attempt to exclude anything beforehand, just a bit of work to ensure that participants in a CFD are presented with some clear and concise options so that the CFD discussion is less likely to get confused by more options being added in after it has started. I know that folks are entitled to add options, but a bit of preparation should help to reduce the need for that. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

oops! by "some discussion first" I meant discussions before renomination. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that's exactly what she wants, and has apparently striven for through her disruptive counter-nomination, I am sure you can imagine that I am hesitant to agree to that. I would not oppose the current noms all being re-listed adjacent (but not combined) with BHG's counter nomination (something that has been done previously with similar/related nominations), with BrownHairedGirl's unhelpful modifications of the previous noms removed as "confusing" (As Kbdank called them) except that her nominations, as duplicate, were not "complete", since they weren't tagged (simply because previous nominations were already underway). So I would think that her counter nomination should be removed, since it was not tagged. The thing is, nominations are "timed". And while this discussion continues, time is counting down. No matter what happens, I think it would be fair to list them for an additional day or two, due to BHG's intervention. I'd like to hear Kbdank's further opinion on all of this, and once the discussion is done, I have no problem deferring to his judgement. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Jc37, you were pointed to existing discussion, saw the propsals being discussed there, and had some probems with them (as you are entitled tob do: that's why they were being duscussed!). Did you contribute or express your concerns? No, you went immediately to a nomination of something very different. It's a real pity that you didn't discuss your concerns before making a nomination, but since your proposals postdate theose at category talk, and since yours arose directly out of the category talk proposals, you can hardly call the earlier ones counter-proposals.

That's unfortunate, but to ask that the earlier proposals which you ignored should be removed is simply a stitch-up. If you ideas are good, why not let them be tested alongside those the earlier proposals which you decided not to discuss? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Did you contribute or express your concerns? No, you went immediately to a nomination of something very different. " - That's an outright misrepresentation of the truth (I will refrain from calling it an outright lie, for civility reasons). As your talk page rather clearly shows. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

jc37, if you extract part of a sentence and quote it out of context, it's easy to cast it as a a misrepresentation. You did indeed respond on my talk page. But what I refered to into the comment you selectively quoted from was that you did clearly read the discussion at category talk, but did not participate there, where you could have explained to other editors why you disagreed with them; nor did you wait for a response from me before making your nominations. You simply decided that you wanted a different proposal, and went ahead and nominated yours, and now you object to any other propoisal being on the table at the same time. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not take any action I am having massive problems with BrownHairedGirl's conduct on another discussion, where once again she is interfering with the normal course of discussion and making things incredibly complicated. I can see no justification to give her what she wants, and doing so will just encourage her to disrupt more discussions in the future. Nonomy 22:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And I am having massive problems there too, Nomony. I have never before seen a noninator set to remove all the keep votes from a CFD by sploitting them off to another CFD. Nice try, though. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• As I've noted, I'm becoming rather troubled by BrownHairedGirl's actions, which I feel have been rather disruptive in CfD in several places. But those aside, here's the simplest procedural point: Her nominations aren't tagged, and cannot be tagged, because there are existing nominations underway. If the tags of existing discussions were removed, I would presume that that would be even more of a disruption. So based on that, I suggest that the non-tagged nom be closed, or at the very least relisted once the others have completed, per existing CfD process. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's all a red herring, because as you know, they can't be separately tagged. The available procedures in such cases are either to withdraw the nominations in favour of a new CFD which will need new tags (which you rejected), or to make a counter-proposal in an existing CFD, which I did (and which doesn't need new tags). It's one thing to try to pre-empt an existing discussion by pre-emptively launching an alternative CFD, but it's a bit rich to then try to block the original proposal from being considered as an alternative. Running two CFDs in parallel on the same issue is an obvious no-no: both could pass, in which case we'd have a conflict. Running them back-to-back makes litte sense either, because them we could have two renames in rapid succession. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, people. I've closed every nomination regarding this that I could find. Please get together and figure out a way to renominate the categories that will cause the least amount of bickering. BTW, I didn't remove the tags from any category, so when you all decide to renominate them, you'll need to re-tag them so they point to the right CFD subpage. Any questions, let me know on my talk page. Thanks. --Kbdank71 12:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very well convinced that Kbdank71 read everything here, there, and everywhere, and I think at this point, what was wanted to be said, has been. So, I'll follow through and defer to his judgement : ) - jc37 12:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kbdank71, and sorry that you ended up having to sort out such a big mess. I think that there is at least agreement that some renaming is needed, and I hope that if Jc37 agrees to discuss options beforehand, that we can all arrive at a coherent set of proposals. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(edited above comment to insert missing word "least" in "there us at least"). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

While I still have concerns about BHG's actions, and accusations (See also User talk:Kbdank71#CFD/ANI: you asked what needs to be done and User talk:BrownHairedGirl#More CFDs on MPs?), unless someone else wishes to continue this specific discussion, I think at this point, since Kbdank71 closed all the nominations that I was involved in (I was not involved in this disrupted CfD or the related WP:POINT action), someone is welcome to close this discussion. As a side note, I do hope that BHG takes the advice I offered on her talk page. - jc37 04:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I will reply on my talk page to the comments there, but I would particularly like to draw the attention of anyone who is still reading to something I find very depressing.

Jc37 replies above kbdank71 that "I'll follow through and defer to his judgement", his judgment having been (reasonably enough) to get together and figure out a way to renominate the categories. But elsewhere, Jc37 writes shortly afterwards that "what I'll do at this point is take my own advice ... I'll do a comprehensive nomination dealing with MP".

I do hope there will be a change of heart, or else we will be heading for a rerun of this tangle. What exactly is the problem with a discussion clear of CFD, among all intersted parties to try to clarify options? :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cjwright79 (talk · contribs)

I am not sure if this is the right place to report this, but this user has been adding some rather questionable edits which seem in violation of WP:POINT, especially in light of his recent FAC and peer review. From his recent contribution history:

• [18] - Redirected Point-of-view to Obvious
• [19] - Redirected Apparently to Obvious (see the bottom of Wikipedia:Peer_review/Betrayal_at_Krondor)
• [20] - Reliable Source (see User_talk:Scientizzle#What_is_wrong_with_saying_that_Rolling_Stone_is_full_of_-----.3F)

EDIT: Additional edits:

• [21] - Created and redirected False virtue to Virtues of Ultima
• [22] - Created and redirected Humilated to Humility
• [23] - Edited Wikipedia:The Motivation of a Vandal to prove a point.
• [24] - Another WP:POINT violation
• [25] - Vandalized Science page
• [26] - Created Homogay to redirect to homosexuality

Gzkn 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And this entire thread is questionable. [27] And if you look at his talk page (and those of editors who have been calling him on his crap), he's said 'sorry, I understand better now and I won't do it again' about a dozen times in half as many days. Personally, I think he's a reincarnation of User:Courtney_Akins. But whoever he is, he's clearly a troll, taking the (long, slow) piss out of well-meaning editors. And what's with all his edits? He's edited his own talk page about 100 times in less than a week (half of which he was blocked for), and a couple of articles another 100 or so times. Anchoress 03:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it's me. Do you have any questions? I've been autoblocked once now, and I'd prefer to avoid such a thing in the future. I may or may not be well meaning, I'm sure you'll be able to judge for yourselves. Chris 04:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we will. Why did you create Cuntbucket exactly? I reverted some of your nonsense, and deleted that one, and when you e-mailed me yesterday asking to be unblocked I looked at your contribs and thought -- troll. Are you here to help us build an encyclopedia, or for some other reason? Antandrus (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs to be an either/or choice. That said, I am definitely in support of improving Wikipedia. However, sometimes one can only do that by challenging the existing Establishment. You may wish to read Wikipedia:The Motivation of a Vandal. Chris

You mean this bit? : "The motivation of a vandal ranges, but their purpose is the same; to get attention. " Regards, Ben Aveling 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly getting it now. Chris

Chris had vandalized Wikipedia:The Motivation of a Vandal (see above list) in hopes of making a point. I have since reverted his vandalism. Gzkn 05:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And you're going to want to read WP:POINT REAL soon. --InShaneee 05:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty pointless to me. Sorry. Chris 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway -- I'm sensing a lot of hate here. I'm gonna go cool off outside. Cheers Chris

And, despite being extremely prolific over the past year, this editor was completely silent during the time Courtney was editing, and made few or no edits on the days that USC Cheerleader was editing. Anchoress 05:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is him too 70.70.200.149 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Shawcable, Surrey, BC, CA. Do we know where the Courtney troll was from? Note that there is some clear vandalism in this history (example [28])

And Chris, it's not hate your sensing, it's that trolling wastes our time, and yours. I can see from some of your edits that you are knowledgeable about a lot of things and are capable of being a good editor. Some of us aren't kids any more, and we'd much rather be writing articles than cleaning up after mischievous kids. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And, the IP edits started just hours after Courtney was blocked. Anchoress 05:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user has already been blocked twice in the past week. Once by myself, another on his IP address ([29]). The insults have been fun [30], and I put up an ANI thread five days ago [31], though it garnered only one reply. Considering the IP block, this is essentially his third chance in the last week and it looks like he's for some reason already burned it. I'd suggest a longer block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a last warning on his talk page. Shortly afterwards, he made this edit. I request that he be blocked by an administrator. I'm getting tired of tracking down and reverting his edits. Gzkn 06:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've given him an indefinite block. I'm tired of this nonsense. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that was definitely the right thing to do. --Masamage 07:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good riddance. -- Scientizzle 07:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast, pardners. User:ChrisWright1979. Anchoress 17:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Block log. InShaneee nailed him, thankfully. I knew that wasn't that last we'd see of him, and wouldn't be surprised if he continues (though more subtly). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well he's got a lot of pit stops before he gets to subtle. ;-) Anchoress 19:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

According to User:ChrisWright1979, "this is the third new account I've created over the past week". Cjwright79 (talk · contribs) & ChrisWright1979 (talk · contribs)...What's the other one? -- Scientizzle 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Could just be the classic, "Release four pigs in the school and number them 1,2,3, and 5" prank. --InShaneee 19:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like ChrisWright79 (talk · contribs) & ChrisW (talk · contribs) [both blocked] are other socks of this user... -- Scientizzle 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this might be another one: Bradleybittinger (talk · contribs) (check out the vandalism then quick reversion, and also the weird note to UtherSRG). Anchoress 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if it isn't this same user, Bradleybittinger's edits have been all vandalism (may have been involved in the creation of Nelson Wu) and may warrant a block if the user (or his sock) continues... -- Scientizzle 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As I dealt the block, anyone else want to deal with the unblock request? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, has anyone gone through the contributions made under Cjwright79 (talk · contribs)? I tried going through some of them the other day, but I'm afraid I don't have the patience to sort through the few legitimate edits he made and the vandalism/trolling... Gzkn 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through a bunch of them, but not all; like you I ran out of patience. I'll have another look. Antandrus (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Chris just emailed me and told me the names of (supposedly all) his accounts:

• cjwright79 cjwright79 (talk · contribs)
• ChrisWright79 ChrisWright79 (talk · contribs)
• ChrisWright1979 ChrisWright1979 (talk · contribs)
• Lordofring Lordofring (talk · contribs)
• MegaManEx MegaManEx (talk · contribs)

And he had some lovely things to say to me too. Oh boy! My first abusive email thru WP!! I'm so excited! Anchoress 01:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He emailed me, too, very politely asking me to unblock him. He says that he wants to come back to Wikipedia and work for "consensus and sanity." I told him I'm not an admin, and that we get a lot of people who "reform" and then continue to wreak havoc. However, I also said that if he's really serious about becoming a positive influence, perhaps he should request arbitration and have some limits put on him. I think following those limits for a while would be excellent proof of good intentions, but I pointed out that I can't promise anything even if he does that. Extreme humility would be required, and a lot of you are so tired with dealing with this mess that it may not be a possibility. It's a thought, anyway. --Masamage 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but I respectfully submit that he's a pathological liar and a chronic manipulative unrepentant incorrigible troll. This is what he sent to me (I know it's bad netiquette to post private email, but I didn't ask to be contacted privately, so I don't feel a need to keep it private):

Lawful Good? What a sham. It's also a shame that I have to live in the same country as you.

I suggest you remove your head from your ass and kindly resolve the matter of my being banned in a sensible and just manner. I see that virtually every administrator of Wikipedia is corrupt and intellectually lazy. You see the rules as being able to be molded into whatever you want them to be. Of course, this works perfectly. Except I'm sick of this bullshit.

Regardless, I have no interest in continuing this silly escapade.

The individual who said that I was taking the 'long, slow piss' out of everyone is quite right. I'm sending you fine folk this message: your sham reign is over. I will not go away. Your illegitimate and entirely evil ways will not be ignored. I haven't attempted to talk to Jimbo yet, but that's definitely becoming an option.

His MO is that he trolls and trolls until people get fed up, then he makes nice and sucks up and acts repentant until he gets unblocked. Then he starts trolling again. I'm not bugged by his communication, but I am absolutely convinced that this editor has no intention of reforming. He's just yanking our chains. Anchoress 04:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I got an email as well — apparently 70.70.200.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which I put a 24-hour block on last week for trolling and vandalism, was him, and he's taken the opportunity to blame me on some of his other user pages. His email asking me to unblock him was polite, but had an air of insincerity about it (he said that based on my user page I appeared to be "a sane and godly fellow", an odd phrasing to say the least). I told him that I saw no reason to unblock him — his vandal/troll edits far outnumber any positive contributions to the encyclopedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had five so far. The final one was the only rude one, the others were polite pleas for unblocking. Not falling for that again. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Boy did I waste my breath on his talk page trying to help him out. His next message he STILL wouldn't promise NEVER to troll again (which was my recommendation to him). Seems like he thinks he has some sort of right to troll. Anyone want to get in touch with his ISP about this? He needs to be sent a strong message that he's the one that's done the wrong thing, and if he's abusing admins here there's not much point unblocking him. If his ISP gets onto him he just might get the message. Curse of Fenric 05:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that Shaw's Acceptable Use Policy [32] covers internet trolling. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about the emails on top of the trolling. Falls under harassment doesn't it? Curse of Fenric 07:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I doubt contacting his ISP would help unless he sent a death threat through those e-mails. If he continues to abuse the "e-mail this user" option, is there a way to block him from using that feature? Gzkn 09:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Three abusive emails today, two with the subject heading "Fucker!". Lovely. One of them ended with the rather baffling sentiment, "Have fun in Penn. State, you penitent bitch." Unfortunately, vocabulary confusion isn't sufficient cause to complain to his ISP... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Weird. I got another one, but it still wasn't rude. All it did was thank me for being "sane" and inform me that, just for my info, the word 'vandal' might be considered highly racist to some people. :) --Masamage 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion to all who are getting these emails. If you haven't done so already, make them bounce if you can. You can program Outlook Express to bounce emails you don't want. I don't know about others. If you have access to your email like I have (a domain host including email servers) you can program them to bounce this sort of thing. If this user persists with different email addys, that's spamming and that CAN be reported to an ISP. Even if they are using providers like Hotmail for example. Curse of Fenric 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't responded to any, doing that provides him with your email address. Not an optimal solution in my opinion. Just set up filters to block the emails. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my latest one has a general message: "Please relay to the group at the Incidents desk that I give up, and will simply wait this one out. If they want to keep me blocked me for a year, five years, ten years, fifty years; so be it. It's not the end of the world, and besides which, chances are good that I actually do need to suffer the consequences of my behaviour for a while." So, I guess that's that? --Masamage 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So is this discussion sufficient evidence that Mr. Wright has been banned rather than just blocked? I'd like to speedy delete his "contributions" of Category:Zones of EverQuest and constitutent articles but can't unless he's "banned". =) Powers ^T 15:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And he's back, again

Vangran (talk · contribs). Claims to have reformed and etc. (as he did before) [33]. Unfortunately, one of his first edits was this rather trollish remark [34]. Anyone up for blocking, again? I think it might be worthwhile to do a checkuser IP check to see if it's remained static, and if so block it to prevent further socks for awhile. I'm wikibreaking for the rest of the day though, so if someone else can handle it, it would be appreciated. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of giving him this one solitary last chance. If he blows it, he's gone; otherwise, so much the better, right? And I don't think that edit you link is trollish, personally. He should of course be very cautious about engaging in debates with anybody, on the other hand. --Masamage 00:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is trollish to edit someone else's talk contributions. IMO if he really did want to edit constructively he would do so without drawing attention to himself. I stand by what I said about him above, I think he's a pathological liar, a troll to the Nth degree, and I think he has a hardon for sucking people's time and goodwill. The problem with 'giving him another chance' is that he is an extremely prolific editor, making 100s of edits a day, and if we do give him a chance, someone is going to have to check them all to keep an eye on him. Are you volunteering? If so, then yeah, I'm all for giving him another chance. Anchoress 00:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He said the he noticed strong Christian nihilism in the other user, so he would therefore be impossible to reason with. He then went on a bit about Wikipedians putting too much trust in Ivory Towers. How is that not trollish? This is much the same thing that he did with his last account. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe you're right.

Is there some kind of special limit we could put on him? I don't know how ArbCom works exactly, but it seems like part of what they do is suggest restrictions on problem editors to help them become more constructive. Would something like that work? --Masamage 00:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a limit that can be placed on him. His accounts can be blocked. See, if he truly wants to edit Wikipedia constructively, he can create an account and keep his nose clean without being a schmuck or trumpeting his previous identities, and we would never know. The fact that he made dubious edits then contacted you to fess up tells me he's still just yanking our chains. Anchoress 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My view is - he won't take no for an answer, and is trying to not so subtly evade the blocks he has already suffered. I personally take the view of "no more chances". If the block is infinite and he is banned for good, he can wait until doomsday - he won't get in on that account. It's a shame account names can't just be deleted. What Crustacean said about Christian whatever it was proves indeed that he can't be spoken to. I tried and look where it got me - he all but ignored my advice and assumed the right to troll. So I say, maximum action. Ban all his ID's permanently and note his IP, and any ID's that are from the same IP or at least the same ISP be labelled a potential sock puppet. Curse of Fenric 01:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The block evasion point is a good one. You've all been around here longer than I, so I can easily imagine that you've got a lot more experience with this sort of thing. I still instictively prefer to give one last chance, but I accept that this might just be naïveté on my part (and I haven't had to put up with the obscenity-filled emails some of you have received). I'll support whatever decision is made. --Masamage 02:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He's had enough chances. If he's so good at block evasion, he can set up an account an not vandalise with it. Blocked. pschemp | talk 17:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:24.47.198.164

Has repeatedly removed non-harassing comments from their Talk page without discussion and without addressing the behavior in question, such as breaking infobox syntax over personal stylistic concerns, adding future information to articles before events have actually occurred, adding false information to articles, removing user comments from their talk, and adding information without proper citation. Since the anon refuses to leave warnings on his talk page unless threatened, other editors do not escalate their warnings as necessary. Was warned to stop the behavior or a report questioning the behavior would be filed--user promptly deleted it. Here are the most recent diffs:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]
6. [40]
7. [41]
8. [42]

Maybe I'm being harsh, but seems like a long pattern of uncivil behavior by the same user here to try to keep a "clean" image. - Debuskjt 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has now taken to deleting third level warnings from their user page: diff. I personally think it's gone far enough to no longer assume WP:GF. They are committing small acts of vandalism, and removing other editors comment off of User talk:24.47.198.164 to make it look like they are a benign editor. - Debuskjt 17:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Banned users asking trolling questions at ArbCom elections

See [43], where an IP - which freely admits to be a banned user - repeatedly asks a question that can be seen as trolling. Same user has targetted other noms too. IIRC, banned users are not allowed to edit at all. Why should we, if we do, make an exception now? – Chacor 15:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For further info, see Avraham's candidacy. This IP is a troll from the war that broke out over circumcision. – Chacor 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The protection of the page after only two reverts was inappropiate, though. - 152.91.9.144^{23:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)}

I saw more than two, there were some added earlier and reverted (around Nov 6 or Nov 7). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it doesn't quite match the stated protection policy, does it? - 152.91.9.144^{00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)}

"Come see the violence inherent in the system! 'Elp, 'elp, I'm bein' oppressed!" - It's a Monty python quote. Search for the holy grail I think. ---J.S (t|c) 18:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the protection, I think this is fine, since it still allows most users to edit and there is no need for moving ArbCom candidate pages unless the ArbCom people think it should be somewhere else. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Nation Based Vandalism

Hi, user Tajik is systematically searching and changing Turkish related articles with wrong and unsourced informations. WikiArticles are not improving because of his/her wrongly editings. He/She is searching 'turk' or "turkic" words in an article and deleting or deforming sentence or changing with 'persian' word in a baseless way. And he generally makes this secretly. He/She is making these changes with 'minor edits'.
A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.
However, Tajik's systematically minor editings hardly affects of articles. And he/she always uses this illegal method. Please have a look at his/her contributions;<br|> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdowsi&diff=78165928&oldid=78165559<br|> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Ghaznavid_Empire&action=history<br|> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hephthalite&action=history (Almost all of the minor editings by Tajik)<br|>

Actually, these are the ones that i could see. Please look at Contr. ;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Tajik<br|> Secondly, if he/she is frustrated in editing he/she is inviting to article other wikipedians. What can be the evidence for teamworking else. He/she is not seeing wikipedia as an culture and information organization. He always deforms sourced turkic related articles and infos. He/she could has problems with other nations and races but is here true platform to solve his/her nation-based problems? Please help to improve Wikipedia...--Karcha 10:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

While this does seem to be a legitimate problem, note that Karcha also copy/pasted this to the talk page of three admins, including myself. --InShaneee 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

inshanee, if you looked at my user page, you don't need to add this comment. I'm a new wikipedian and was unaware of AN/I that's why i posted this to three admins until one of these admin's suggestion.--Karcha 23:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is invited to take at the links you have posted - especially the article hephthalites, in which you have been depanted not only by me, but also by User:Sikandarji, an Oxoford academic and a specialist on Central Asian history.

I also suggest every neutral reader to take a look at the nationalistic nonsense you are trying to propagate in Wikipedia, especially your hillarious accusation against the Encyclopaedia Iranica and more than 500 world-renowned and well-respeced scholars: [44]

YOU are the problem here ... not me, and not someone else. Tājik 22:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

the US Senate is vandalising the Donald Rumsfeld article!

• Here:

Donald Rumsfeld was fishing off the coast of Melbourne in 2002 when he came across a great white shark. The shark attempted to drag the entire boat under water, but Rumsfeld jumped into the water, killed the beast, and ate it raw. Thus, he has become a great white shark that can walk on land but uses the human appearance in order to avoid frightening children.

• And here and again here where they keep trying to add this image of a great white shark!

They're already on two warnings! Hysterical! :)  Glen  17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh shit, this just takes the cake! Buddy you have balls! Nice  Glen  17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Not to encourage vandalism, but it's great to see somebody at the Senate has a sense of humour! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe from the usertalk page that it's the House of Representatives, not the Senate. Note the request here that the Foundation be notified immediately if this address is blocked. Newyorkbrad 18:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Silly Representatives... This is better than me issuing warnings to the Belgian Parliament! Shadow1 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Expect a "Free Editing For All" bill decreeing an end to blocks and bans on freely-editable websites to appear on the schedule when the next sitting starts. The representative who proposes it is probably our perp... Tony Fox (arf!) 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably some staffer either celebrating or drowning their sorrows... 68.39.174.238 22:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

See [45]. I have a problem with this username, I am wondering if it is at all founded. Yanksox 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm giving a username block. - crz crztalk 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What? Why? It's the name of a band, among other things. I oppose this. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a misspelled name of a band actually. Note that name blocks can also be given for names that match those of a real-world organisation. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make him change it. I find it a little upsetting that you would have a problem with it. Pushing subjects like suicide under the carpet contribute to keeping it taboo, something that 'shouldn't be talked about'. It has been a previaling attitude of the past. I write as someone who works on the articles around this subject on WP. Anyway I think he has chosen it, however, as he likes the band of the same name. I think it would be unfair should he have to change it. Thanks --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amists (talk • contribs)

I say keep it. Why censor a username that isn't an insult to anyone directly and is probably just referencing the band. --AW 21:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The user name is in violation of the user name policy. Exploding Boy 21:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's borderline WP:U violation, though I imagine this is a reference to the band and not any statement of intention. Personally I don't think it is that big of a deal. That said, the user has crossed the line on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and probably deserves a cooling off block.--Isotope23 21:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is in reference to the band, then it's a username block anyway... --Rory096 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This user's second edit was a request for user name change, so s/he obviously shared these concerns, at least at some point. Accurizer 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or is username blocking being applied in a non-uniform and inconsistent fashion?JoshuaZ 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, after a look at the guideline, I'd say it's a little broad and open to interpretation. Additionally, I agree that we should not block people for simply referring to certain things, such as violent or illegal activities. Would User:Rape_Counselor be blocked? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's just a reference to a band, I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like the person is promoting suicide or anything like that. RobJ1981 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it maybe be a big deal to ask Crz to revert his hasty block then, at least for now? --Amists 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, this guy's name is not offensive. An offensive name is something that includes profanity or racism or things like that, just because a name has the word "suicide" doesn't mean it should be indef blocked! I say let him keep it! And revert that block! --StonedChipmunk 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's a reference to a band, it's disallowed as an infringement on their brand. Otherwise, it is completely inappropriate due to reference to suicide. Yes, Murderous Rage, Impulse to Rape, and Misogynistic Boor are all inappropriate for the same reason - they bring the project to disrepute. However, in the face of opposition, I will revert myself. - crz crztalk 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For anyone keeping score, Sean Black blocked him for being a troll. Yanksox 01:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's probably for the best. In his defense, however, I feel I need to point out that it's not completely incorrect to call me an asshole. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the contribs, this user is not a troll. Thanks to the admins for providing an indefinite block and forcing out a diligent and useful member of wikipedia with a consistent history of enforcing the policies here and working against vandalism for one vio of NPA and possibly one borderline infringement of CIVIL. So wise, and so so just. --Amists 10:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's relocated to a new username; seems to be a good solution to the problem. Not that I'm an admin or anything, but I looked at his contribs, and he seems to be doing a decent job of RC patrol and other work; the flareup looks to have been generated by what might just be confusion over the username complaints. Hopefully this sorts the situation out. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: look deeper into contribs next time. stupid. Considering the below, yeah, he does seem to have confrontational issues sometimes. I don't think it's unredeemable, however, and with the move to a less concerning username (User:Ring modulator), hopefully he can moderate that aspect. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, there have been problems with this user. Some of his more troubling edits: personal commentary, trolling, incivility, user page vandalism, user talk vandalism, biting, trolling, not to mention my own personal encounter when I confronted him about placing inappropriate indefblock messages on talk pages; his unapologetic reply, and subsequent trolling on my talk page. The block was appropriate and it would be a good idea to keep an eye on his new account. Accurizer 19:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him again for 48 hours for comments left on my talk page and others. This blantant incivility is ridiculous considering he knows better than this. Yanksox 15:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Promotion of Business

User:Mancation is using the definition of the word mancation to promote himself and his business.

Punch-up brewing at CFD

A bucket of cold water needs to be hurled at various editors of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Female life peers - claims and counterclaims of vote deletion and vandalism; looks like this needs watching. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As one of the protagonists, I can point out that we have even had user:nonomy ppuring out barrages of personal abuse, and making two attempts to move ALL of the oppose votes off to a separate CFD (see this diff for one instance).

The whole CFD should in any case have been closed at the outset as an abuse of the CFD process, because it seeks to strike out a category contrary to existing guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I keep looking over that diff, but I don't see a single removal of a keep vote. Grouse 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I got the wrong diff :(

Anyway, at 17:50, 9 November 2006 here's the votes before Nonomy's restructuring: 3 deletes, 4 keeps

... and at 20:15, 9 November 2006 here's the votes after nonomy has been at work: 3 deletes, no keeps (all the keeps have been moved off to a separate CFD, below).

That's aside from the current state of the CFD, hich has split out the male-only categories, and kept the female-only ones. The vore-deleting nominator claims that it is bad faith to remove a male-only gendered category, but a great idea to remove a female-only one.

How often do we have to go through all this? The only gendered categories that I know of comply with Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations, but there is a hard core of dissidents who refuse to acknowledge the existence of the guidelines and press CFDs on a regular basis This is the third CFD in a few months to remove a women legislators in the UK category :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I there see votes by User:Radiant! and User:Calsicol at 9:44 and 13:54 UTC. Then at 15:24 UTC you stick eight new categories above their votes, which makes it appear that they voted for these eight categories as well. I see your point about frustrating the intent of the keep votes, but it appears you did the same with delete votes.

• Comment that's an inherent problem with incomplete partisan nominations such as this one. :( The appropriate action would be to message the contributos concerned and point oit that the nonination has been broadened to include other relevant categories which should have been included at the outset. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"This is the third CFD in a few months to remove a women legislators in the UK category :( " - Just a guess, but that sounds to me like that could be considered consensus. And if we add in all the other gender-based discussions (such as the recent deletion of all the actress categories, and so on), it really would appear to be so. In any case, this discussion would appear to be better served on CfD. Though I am troubled by another case of BrownHairedGirl modifying a nomination to suit her preferences, rather than making suggestions and and attempting to discuss in order to come to consensus. See the "see also" below for what I'm referring to. - jc37 01:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(sigh)I should have written "the third CFD in a few months seeking to to remove a women legislators in the UK category". The fact that a few partisan males repeatedly push a contentious POV rejected by existing Wikipedia guidelines and by the cross-party consensus in Parliament itself is not evidence of a consensus on wikipedia: no CFD has been closed with a consensus to delete these categoris. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of you people need a time-out. Grouse 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I can see that you did not give me the wrong diff, but I did not understand it until your recent explanation. Grouse 01:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the bucket of cold water. I took a look, and was so dismayed by the state of the discussion that I was unable to vote in any other way than "Be nice?" --Masamage 01:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#One CFD withdrawn needs closing, other CFDs apparent bad faith by User:Jc37, also on this page, for a possibly related situation. - jc37 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this edit summary is going to help.... Newyorkbrad 02:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Left a message on User talk:Nonomy re: the above diff. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of that message, but I disagree that such a strong warning is warranted; calling someone "hypocritical" and "a shameless politician" is overly robust and incivil, but not in any way grounds for an indefinite block (as threatened) unless part of a pattern of abusive behaviour demonstrated repeatedly. (Note for the record that I am myself involved in a completely separate and unrelated discussion with BHG where her actions have been entirely reasonable and commendable, and which is not related to this CfD debate, in which I have no interest (and, in fairness, only an imperfect understanding)). It does very much strike me however that there are two sides to this particular story, and that some naughtyness may well have gone on on both sides. Fundamentally however, there is no excuse for incivility. That's my 2p. Badgerpatrol 06:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels

I think this user might be Willy on Wheels, and as such needs to be blocked indefinitely. Check his contributions. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Red link~ --Masamage 00:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the username comes up a redlink means that there is no userpage; it doesn't necessarily mean there is no corresponding user. In any event, Steel359 has already blocked indef. Newyorkbrad 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, of course. My mistake. --Masamage 00:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem; I've made the same mistake. Newyorkbrad 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the original WoW is even around anymore; "on wheels" has pretty much become a stock phrase for general vandals. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have conclusive proof that Willy on wheels has in fact recently died.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Which one? Grandmasterka 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Most likely "failed frame up".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Request removal of inappropriate edit

Could an administrator remove this edit - [46] - from the edit history for Randy Forbes? The edit is blank, but the description is absolutely horrible. Thanks. BigDT 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Done by Naconkantari @ 06:31, November 10, 2006. [47] Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! BigDT 17:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Emir214

Not quite sure what to do with this user, apparently leaving wikipedia. Had his page deleted, he recreated it with this text:

This username is free.

You may contact me if you want it.

I'd suggest an indef-block of the account, we shouldn't let this happen. – Chacor 07:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Try emailing him about it first? --Masamage 07:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User has now speedy-tagged his usertalk page with "I have archived my talk page. Please delete it. But do not delete my user page. I recreated it for someone who wants to use my username. - Emir214 07:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)" – Chacor 07:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just leave it guys, can't image we'll be having a huge rush on Emir214 requests... have we even been through 1-213 yet? ;)  Glen  08:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Anyways, I don't know if I like this idea. Users are often judged based on their past contributions (giving leniency to users who have just recently become trolls, for example). Also, deleting the usertalk should be out of the question, as the links to the archives are the only access to them. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was a guideline someplace about not sharing your username or transfering it to anyone else, but I can't find it now. --Masamage 08:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since I don't want to face another problem here, please revert my user page to contain all my archives instead. - Emir214 09:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an acceptable offer. Public accounts are prohibited on Wikipedia. Per WP:BLOCK ""Public" accounts, where the password is publicly available or shared with a large group" This isn't a large group but advertising that someone can usurp your account is not acceptable. We block accounts all the time when they are compormised. This account has been blocked and the offer removed. pschemp | talk 17:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for lock on content of Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah

Hi. There is an AfD occurring for this article (see AfD/Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah). After the AfD started, a user,User:Pmanderson, deleted a vast majority of the article's contents citing it wasn't sourced. Not only did I think this was inappropriate, but I did what we all should do, after restoring those contents I started improving the article and added many references/sources (in this case they are actual US Patents that the article was claiming the subject created). User:Pmanderson came back and deleted the vast majority of the article again, even with the new references/sources. In doing so User Pmanderson noted "remove unsourced preposterous trash". This attack on the editors work seems to violate WP:NPA. But what I'm requesting here is that the article be locked from most of it getting deleted. Here is the article before the deletion -->[48], and here it is after -->[49]. I've restored it again, but I think I need help in preserving it. Would somebody be interested in helping? Thank you for reading. --Oakshade 08:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted per Oakshade's discovery. El_C 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I discovered the copywrite issue after the initial posting here. While I think it was wrong of the user to delete most of the article (for reasons that had nothing to do with copywrite violations), the point seems moot after the new discovery. Thanks for looking into this. --Oakshade 02:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Koavf (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely

Koavf has managed to rack up eight distinct blocks for 3RR, and 2 more for other disruptive behavior(block log). Note also edits like this.. I just extended his latest 3RR block to idefinite, as I think the community's patience is likely exhausted by now. He has had many opportunities to mend his ways. Having recently returned from a week-long block, he started edit warring again almost immediately. His behavior is unmodified despite the volume of blocks he has received. Of course, I put this possibly-controversial action up for review. Dmcdevit·t 08:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no note on his User or User_talk page? - Francis Tyers · 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He has lots of warnings on his Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the lack of note on his talk page regarding his indefinite block. A note has subsequently been added. - Francis Tyers · 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's much possibility of recovery here. While I'm sure he's a nice guy, I don't think he has the temperament for editing here. I'm going to endorse this action, though sadly. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, harsher than we usually are. But then perhaps we are usually too soft. Endorse with the proviso that we put a note on his talk page indicating that he will be considered for a 'last chance' if he indicates that he 'gets it' undertakes to behave.--Doc^g 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that a long block of some sort is in order. Not sure if indefinite is needed, just yet (I'm not too familiar with the situation), but the long-term disruption and failure to learn from past transgressions is pretty worrisome. Luna Santin 01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he deserves an indefinite block, but I think that some kind of length (maybe 3-6 month block) with the option of a "last chance" before indefinite would be appropriate. He has been a useful editor, and the disruption comes from edit warring rather than vandalism. - Francis Tyers · 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Justin is a nice user but w/ a temperament. It is this same temperament that leads him to edit warring non-stop. If you'd ask me i'd say i'd prefer a definite ban from editing Morocco/Western Sahara related articles where he got most of the blocks. -- Szvest 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

Agree with Svest. - Francis Tyers · 22:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very strict block. I have edited on the Western Sahara articles before and I think that Kovaf has been struggling with some users who only have the aim to put certain viewpoints on Wikipedia. I'm not convinced by his neutrality entirely either, but I think the articles could become very unbalanced and that we would lose a valued contributor if he were indefinately blocked.

A block of a much shorter duration should be enforced here - 1 month, 2 maximum. I definately don't think he should be blocked from editing Western Sahara/SADR aritcles (but might support a block from aritcles on Morocco). --Robdurbar 16:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don’t want to interfere in your discussion guys but Robdurbar’s remarks justifying Kovaf’s behavior as just a "a struggle with some users" oblige me to do so. I think this is simply unfair from an admin.
• There are reasons why Koavf has been blocked (no need to list them again) and this has nothing to do with any "other users". Trying to Justify his behaviour in this way is simply wrong.
• The unbalance of the topic is an other wrong argument. He had the chance to cooperate with all and he clearly did not. Now there is a real chance that the topics will be more balanced and the atmosphere among the editors more co-operative and peaceful. All he was doing is (mis-) using Wikipedia for a platform to fight for the independence of a disputed territory and discouraging others with his obsessive reverts.
• There are rules, and they apply for all, so remember which message you will give if you unblock this user; it's like telling everybody "ok, just continue with your edit-warring and reverts, you’ll always find a nice admin to defend and unblock you."

Kind regards - wikima 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Playing politics in pro wrestling 2

I reported this earlier here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive145#Playing_politics_in_pro_wrestling

I was going to report this as a 3RR violation, but this hasn't occurred within a 24 hour period.

Three times now, an anonymous IP based in Adelaide with the one ISP has attempted to - IMO - push a POV by placing the promotion EPW AKA NWA Pro above all the others, in an attempt to gain the websites listed publicity. I originally had it in order of size, but it was suggested to me that alphabetical order would be better. I certainly agree that it is the best order to give a neutral POV. But that wasn't enough for this person. The IP's are;

219.90.231.145 - 219.90.230.143 - 219.90.187.203

It is also possible that this person knows me and is trying to upset me. He isn't because I know the Wikipedia rules are on my side because this act is not only against the NPOV rules, but it also amounts to subtle advertising, which is also not permitted. I'm not keen on having to revert these actions without some back up to control this politically motivated individual. Adelaide is a hotbed for this sort of BS. Curse of Fenric 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've slapped a BV warning on the talk page of all three IP's. Hopefully that will help. Let me know if that was the wrong way to handle this issue. Curse of Fenric 01:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Necronudist

User:Necronudist has been acting rude and uncivil against several users lately, as well as not caring about other policies either, but as I have been involved in some of the discussions myself, I prefer to let another admin solve this. It has been going on for a pretty long time now, on and off. The first "conflict" I can remember can be found here (example edits [50] [51] [52]) and he has since continued to be rude against other users, or has shown a complete lack of understanding of policies and their function (for example [53] [54]).

The conflict has then erupted during the last week. See this discussion where the user recommends another user to break WP:3RR because he thinks the policy, along with WP:NN and WP:NPOV, are "bad ideas", and the latest conflict in this discussion, specifically rudeness and lack of care for policies (example edits: [55] [56] [57] [58]) I have warned him and told him to stop several times during the discussion ([59] [60] [61]), but nothing changed, and thus I gave a final warning ([62]), after which he answered with this, saying he would go away and he has also edited his userpage ([63]) to show that. But since he's had a statement on his userpage for long ([64]) that he was to quit editing Wikipedia on May 23 earlier this year, I don't really know how serious he is this time.

Actions? – Elisson • T • C • 15:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried, my friend, but I'm "too free" to be part of this moneypedia. However, you forgot to write that I've linked to wikitruth that is considered an high crime here in Jimbopedia. And, please note, I've never offended anyone, just spoken frankly. I didn't quit before because I wanted to keep up to date some pages I created or heavily edited, but this time I'll seriously quit, me and my future projects. Be sure. I'm not a drama queen like someone wrote. You are a good person Elisson, maybe one day you'll notice. --82.61.59.136 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (ex-Necronudist)

P.S.: Maybe you'd better say that I've also done something positive here, like reverting vandalism and creatin' unique and hard-working pages. You know, just to say who you are tryin' to ban.

Already implied in one of my warning edits linked to above (this one, to be specific: [65]). And making good contributions does still not allow anyone to be uncivil or break policies. I'd like to have you at the project considering your good sides, but seeing you fail—and judging by how you act, you do it on purpose—to adhere to the rules over and over again, I do not longer believe that the sum of your contributions add to the betterness of Wikipedia. – Elisson • T • C • 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand, there's no problem for me. You (wikipedians) have lost a football researcher (hobby) and an historian (studies & job) because of a pair of stupid rules. Sure I'm not the first, and not the last. Let's think about this. Wikipedia isn't God (is there a policy like this? :-), it fails sometimes, maybe you (wikipedians) should try to improve it. --82.61.59.136 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (ex-Necronudist)

Imagine a wikipedia without rules. It's a shame you've been banned, but it's for the protection of the community. Wikipedia functions as a society and an acceptance of the rules of the society are required. Without those rules (even stupid ones), whatever they may be, the society will collapse... and no one user is worth such a collapse.

I find your attitude here slightly insulting as well. Moneypedia? Wikimedia has refused buyout offers, runs no advertisements, and is one of the largest collections of free content on the planet.

If you don't accept the laws of the land, thats fine. But you can't blame us when you leave. ---J.S (t|c) 22:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not blaming anyone. And we all know who Jimbo was before this project: one of the thousands that tried to make money with porno. Fortunately he found the new religion: Wikipedia. And so t-shirts, high paid wikimania interventions... However, I see your point, I accept it, and I quit. Simple. I was here for the culture, to give my little contribution, but if the religion comes first, well, I leave your stupid dogmas to you. It's not right that a person can't revert a vandalism 'cause the vandal has vandalized the page more than three times. It's stupid. I must have the possibility to break the rule for a good reason, not to be scared 'cause I'm breaking a stupid rule. Just think about. --82.61.59.136 10:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (ex-Necronudist)

Requesting Sockpuppet block

Grazon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now a confirmed puppet-master. I'd like to request a block of his puppet Devilmaycares (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If a admin wishes to slosh though a bunch of diffs you'll see the disruptive editing patterns at a RFC I filed. I think there's ample reason to long-term block the main account too, but I'll leave that to the judgement of those who aren't involved. ---J.S (t|c) 18:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User refusing to name his sources

Long-time problem user Deucalionite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (with a history of unsourced articles, plagiarism, fringe POV pushing, and several long 3RR blocks) is back to his old ways. Now he's flat out refusing to name the sources he used for writing his latest article, Talk:Henriette Mertz. I have a negative history with this user and would rather not want to take administrative action myself. Can someone look into the case please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to prod this article for the time being; we can't differentiate between statements with an 'unknown' source and those with no source at all. --InShaneee 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Prod removed by someone, with a note on the talk page of the article. Your call if you want to take it to AfD... Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict with Daniel). I apologize, InShanee, I didn't realize the Prod was new when I removed it, but I'm going to leave the prod off -- IMHO, the existence of the books is verifiable by the books themselves, or by WorldCat if you prefer a secondary source, and Google books returns enough hits to assure me of notability. If someone wanted to delete all the unverified info and stubbify (or, better yet, find an obituary and replace with verified info), that would be fine with me, but I don't think PROD is right. Thanks, and sorry for stepping on your toes, TheronJ 20:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Alternately, if this user is such a well-known plagiarist that an admin feels comfortable reverting all of his unsourced edits, I'll be happy to stubbify the article myself down to what I can verify. Let me know, TheronJ 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Stubbify sounds good for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Cut down to one sentence until sourced. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute with Naradasupreme over an anonymous user page

A while ago, I came across an archived user page that had been blanked by Naradasupreme (talk · contribs), but it belongs to 24.148.67.72. I have made repeated calls [66] [67] [68] and so have other users [69] [70] to get a proper explanation for the actions.

My reverts on the anonymous page have been claimed as vandalism by this user repeatedly. I had made a request to have this investigated, but it appears that it has gone nowhere and now I have decided to approach this to you all.

A couple of things here that I should note:

• 24.148.67.72 may be also both Oldschoolfreak and Naradasupreme and I suspect that one of them could be a sock puppet account.
• User talk:Naradasupreme/Archive/one shows that has been warned months ago about blanking this page. He claims that the issue had resolved a week ago at that time.

In all honesty, I just want a simple explanation, but it is getting to the point where I feel that there needs to be some sort of third party resolution here. Thanks. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made the request that he explains himself here. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of deletion tags & incivility issues

Deathrocker (talk · contribs) is keeping on removing {{Replaceable fair use}} tags from Image:Bojinov.jpg, Image:59040.jpg, Image:LeccePromoShot.jpg. In the beginning, his removals had personal attacks as edit summaries ( "clown added inapropriate tag to image": [71] [72]; "removing vandalism": [73]). I warned him against removing the tags, suggesting him to insert the appropriate {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag ([74]); I warned him against using personal attacks ([75]), with him answering "moron spammed my talkpage" ([76]); he removed the tags agains, I warned him again against tag removal ([77]); he reverted again, leaving a message in the images talk pages (e.g. [78]) in which he clearly shows not to understand WP:FU.

My questions are: is there a way to oblige him not to remove the tags? Is there a way to stop him from posting uncivil edits and edits summaries? Is there a way to settle such blatantly un-collaborative and disruptive behaviour, without going through the whole WP:DR process?--Panarjedde 00:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of such tags is vandalism, and he can be blocked if he continues. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The images already had apropriate licensing, Panarjedde insists on putting inapropriate tags on the images because he doesn't like the club which the players are associated with. The tag he placed on the images has no purpose and doesn't belong there. - Deathrocker 01:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Per the report at WP:PAIN Deathrocker has been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks. Durova^Charge! 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Unknown source of vandalism?

Does anyone else see a strange vandalism on Talk:Coat of arms of Nagorno-Karabakh ? I've checked the template included there, but can't see where that strange text is coming from! 68.39.174.238 01:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I could not find the source, since I ended up at a weird template, but it's fixed now. Why did you need an admin? -Amarkov ^babble 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems to be okay now; thanks for bringing this to our attention, though. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I got it. That Wikiproject banner uses Template:Namespace prefix of associated page. If you look at the talk page of that, it says: "If used on a Talk page, it calls {{PTalk}}". The vandalism was to Template:PTalk. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

ARGH! Thanx dude. While templates are the greatest things every, stuff like that is infuriating since it's so hard to track down the origin thereof. Anyway, it was vandalism and I couldn't fix it myself, so I figured this was the best place for it. 68.39.174.238 01:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic/Racial comments by User:Street Scholar

User:Street Scholar, as part of a verbal tirade against other users with whom he's involved in an arbcomm case, made a very objectionable racial/ethnic comment against the Bengali people in Talk:Martial Race. Wikipedia is not a place for hate speech, and such bigotry. I have requested the user to refrain from making such hateful comments, however, he subsequently has continued his verbal tirade against certain racial/ethnic groups.

Of any place, maintaining a healthy atmosphere at an encyclopedia is of supreme importance. I denounce the derogatory comments against Bengalis (or any other ethnic groups) made by User:Street Scholar, and request other administrators to take appropriate actions. Thank you. --Ragib 02:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This guy has been carrying on like this for months. His justification is that under "his culture" remarks that degrade women in sometimes particularly offensive manner are OK, and thus allowed on wikipedia because of it policy of respecting all beliefs. Unfortunately he doesn't understand (more like refuses to accept) that this is a two-way street and he himself does not show respect for other cultures. It is OK to have beliefs, they should be respected, but that doesn't give anyone the right to push them onto others particularly when they are offensive to otherss. Not just rude, but a hypocrtite. I suggest often he is just trying to get a reaction. This user has been discussed here before - i know this is about women, but it illustrates his double standards:

[79], [80], vandalism to express hate?: [81], charming: [82], [83], [84]. --Merbabu 04:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

May I add that there seems to be a pattern to his racism. He has been adding a lot of pseudoscientific and unscholarly prattle into oages like Cheema Raja Sahasi II, upto and including links to hate sites containing bogus race theories such as http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/ [85] Hkelkar 07:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that he's had enough chance to demonstrate his usefulness, or lack thereof, to the project? He has stated that he is firmly opposed to following the NPA policy regarding sexist comments on other editors even after being blocked for it. Whatever his reasons, he's behaviourally no different than a deliberate and admitted troll. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He continues to make ethnic/racial attacks. This sort of insipid and disruptive trollery is very hard on all of us.I think some action is needed soon. This is his latest screed [86]. Continues to spam hate sites.Hkelkar 12:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

that guy with a grudge against Chuq and Longhair

So far, all the IPs used by the Chuq/Longhair vandal (this guy) have been listed as open proxies at [87], so I\\\'ve been reblocking for 6 months. Thatcher131 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this one 59.167.61.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks legit. Maybe his home IP? Thatcher131 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Another grudge? Must be my lucky month. :) -- Longhair\\\\^talk 02:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So sorry. Looks like this is the guy who has been adding unverified stuff to Internode Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Simon Hackett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His home ISP appears to be Internode in Adeliade. Every non-internode IP he has used so far has turned up on at least one open proxy blacklist. I recommend blocking on sight any non-Aussie IP he uses for a minimum of a month. Thatcher131 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That\\\'s what you think. My valid contributions to Internode_Systems were just being deleted for lame reasons. My contributions were referenced. No discussion was entered into regarding changing or removing parts of my contribution. The entire contribution to the article was reverted and then the page was protected. By the way, unsecured wireless and default admin router passwords are great. Regards the Chuq/Longhair vandal 208.101.10.54 03:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There\\\'s discussion at User_talk:ScottDavis, Talk:Internode Systems and Talk:Simon Hackett but you\\\'ve chosen to ignore most of it. Besides, it\\\'s kind of difficult to let you know others are trying to discuss these edits with you if you choose to remain anonymous and make little use of talk pages. -- Longhair\\\\^talk 03:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that \\\"discussion\\\" as you call it is so biased against the contributions it can\\\'t be taken seriously. Clearly aggressive wording in my opinion which must be the Internode Fanboi coming out in you. Regards the Chuq/Longhair vandal 69.64.49.130 03:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don\\\'t give one hoot about Internode. I care about reliable sources of information however... -- Longhair\\\\^talk 03:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure sure. Can you please explain to me then how the magazine article and the ISP\\\'s own DSLAM rollout page I referenced was unreliable? The managing director stated the goal was to complete 25% of the exchanges in the timeframe of 3-4 months that were released in the magazine article. It has now been 5 months and they have only completed 11%. It is fact. How is that unreliable????????????????? Chug/Longhair Vandal 66.79.168.59 03:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Once you call off your army of anonymous vandals and quit fiddling with the userpages of the editors involved in the debate, I may begin to take you a little more seriously. We don\\\'t cower to brute force insertion of your point of view here sorry. -- Longhair\\\\^talk 04:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What\\\'s this then? Are you going to answer the question about \\\"unreliable\\\" sources? Or are you just going to delete my responses as you have started to because you can\\\'t handle it? Chug/Longhair Vandal 67.159.5.85 05:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The APC article is fine as a reference, but it doesn\\\'t back up the point of view you\\\'re trying to insert. See Thatcher131\\\'s comments below. I dislike repeating solid information to those who refuse to read it. -- Longhair\\\\^talk 05:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are inappropriate because you intend them to personally attack Mr. Hackett for the way he runs his company and because the only source is some kind of blog or internet forum. Maybe if you had a newspaper article or something, and could write it in a neutral tone presenting just the facts, you might get a better reception. Thatcher131 03:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That\\\'s a load of crap. There were no personal attacks in my contributions. I did however change my contribution to a more accurate and referenced piece. For instance I added an article regarding the proposed rollout of services and expected timeframe. I then had a look at the ISP\\\'s rollout page and found that they hadn\\\'t even completed half of what they had aimed to do in the article. How is that a personal attack? It\\\'s factual information about the rollout being behind schedule. I think the deletions are a reflection of bias. Chug/Longhair vandal 72.36.195.155 03:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I\\\'ve never had a vandal named after me before. I\\\'m honoured. Longhair and Thatcher131 have pretty much said all that needs to be said here. To answer the vandal: The actual content isn\\\'t the big problem, although it was obviously biased, it isn\\\'t the reason for the blocks - it was the 3RR breakage and refusal to discuss changes on talk pages first. The evasion of blocks, the user page vandalism and Admin\\\'s noticeboard vandalism, the use of open proxies, and the admitted use of an open access point without the owners permission - isn\\\'t really helping your cause at all. -- Chuq 05:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That\\\'s laughable. The evasion of blocks, the user page vandalism and Admin\\\'s noticeboard vandalism, the use of open proxies and the open access point use is a direct result of overmoderation of Wikipedia. How about before deleting someones contribution and banning them, you consider the article that was submitted and suggest rewording or removal of parts of it, instead of flatly removing the entire thing and protecting the page so no one can change it. Love the Chuq/Longhair Vandal 193.196.41.38 05:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

When you choose to play outside the rules, protection is a means to stop your behaviour. Edit warring isn\\\'t within the rules here in case you hadn\\\'t realised, and ignoring discussion at talk pages doesn\\\'t rate that highly either. It took several days for protection to be enabled, far longer than anyone has to tolerate the nonsense that caused it. -- Longhair\\\\^talk 05:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok look here we go.......it\\\'s the Chuq/Longhair brigade again.....give me a break! The reason I was banned by 3RR was because you were removing the edits completely, no discussion except \\\"anti-vandalism\\\" rant. You failed to even acknowledge that the article contribution that was submitted was correct, it just didn\\\'t wash with your own personal preferences. Hence that\\\'s why I resubmitted. Chuq/Longhair Vandal 200.61.58.2 05:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No. The reason you were blocked under WP:3RR was because you edit warred, and failed to discuss the matter. -- Longhair\\\\^talk 05:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Right....at least I acknowledge that both sides have done wrong here. Both yourself and Chuq are still to pigheaded to acknowledge that. Love Mr CLV. 75.126.32.98 05:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits were removed by at least three distinct editors, with explanations in the edit comments. This demonstrates the consensus that this content was not wanted in that form. There were also comments and explanations on User talk:59.167.63.34, User_talk:ScottDavis, Talk:Internode Systems and Talk:Simon Hackett. You did not respond to any of these requests to discuss, except to \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' that ADSL2+ did not belong on Simon Hackett. It was clearly only a matter of time before you were blocked for 3RR (Chuq beat me to it by about 10 minutes I think). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again the \\\"talk\\\" was more in line with \\\"you are just a complaining customer\\\". If I was a \\\"complaining customer\\\", why would I even bother? I\\\'d just switch ISP\\\'s. I like Internode I honestly do, however there rollout is not progressing as they hoped(possibly for reasons outside of their control). It is fact however, demonstrated by the magazine article and the Internode DSLAM rollout page. C.L.V. 66.79.168.59 06:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was prepared to attempt to mediate a compromise, until you vandalised my user page, causing more work for other admins to clean up. Your efforts are reducing the effort of other users available to improve Wikipedia (including those articles). Thankyou to the people who helped clean up. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Scott I\\\'m sure you wanted to \\\"mediate a compromise\\\".....pull the other one why don\\\'t you?....now you have something to blame for why you never were going to do anything. Mr CLV. 75.126.32.98 11:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This user is banned

It seems highly likely, in my opinion, that this user, currently editing anonymously, is the banned user Internodeuser (also known as Zordrac). He has all the same interests and grudges, and the same ISP and physical location. He is also currently banned until at least February 2007, so feel free to revert/block these socks on sight. --bainer (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am Internodeuser (also known as Zordrac).....NOT!!!!! Try harder next time. :P I was given birth to by Chuq and Longhair with assistance from Scott Davis and Sarah Ewart. Yes there is plenty more to come(time permitting of course), there are still PLENTY of Mr CLV modifications that haven\'t been found yet either. :P Chuq/Longhair Vandal 85.214.49.219 01:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think the two are related, not that it matters anyway. This vandal is far more childish than my old sparring partner Internodeuser ever was. -- Longhair\^talk 01:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was just chatting with FreplySpang about this. As I said to him, Internodeuser was never savvy enough to do something like open proxy vandalism, so you may well be right. In any event, it doesn't really matter. --bainer (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfocused (talk · contribs) - bad faith assumptions, possible WP:POINT

Last night, I closed three school AFDs as deletes. Since then, I have repeatedly been accused of "abuse of power" by Unfocused, and giving "opinionated" close statements instead of closing the debates based on straight votes (AFD is not a vote). Despite being instructed by another user (as well as myself) to go to deletion review, he/she has continued to insist that he/she is right to go through the dispute resolution process, as if this were a content or behavioral dispute, and he absolutely refuses to go to DRV. Even after I amended my statements to not appear opinionated (and they weren't in the first place), Unfocused accused me of trying to cover up my original statements - if I wanted to do that, I would have deleted the AFDs, and restored all edits except the one that contained my original statement. He/she has since reverted the edits twice. Something may need to be done, as this user has a history of assuming bad faith. --Coredesat 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have reverted your post-closing changes to the AFD closing statement twice mistakenly thinking that you should't be allowed to clarify or ammend the closing statment, and then stopped that, and left two confrontational but not hostile comments on your talk page. Those are not great behavior, but he stopped soon enough that it doesn't seem really disruptive. Most of the flames for the last several hours seem to be limited to a nice toasty discussion on his talk page... which you and all the other editors can just walk away from. I think that someone has to really go out of their way to justify an abuse claim for disruption or the like for an ongoing discussion limited to their own talk page. I think he's wrong on whether it's ok for you to ammend the closing comment; if he keeps the ongoing argument on his talk page, is that causing you any problems? If it bothers you, walk away and ignore him... No need to keep arguing with him there and feeding the unhappyness flames. If he comes out and bothers you on your talk page or elsewhere a lot more, that's a different story. Georgewilliamherbert 03:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You realise that doing that will just attract claims of ignorance and covering up? – Chacor 03:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll go on and do just that (walk away). Thanks. --Coredesat 03:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, if he comes out swinging into other pages, particularly if he's argumentatively or uncivily crying coverup, then that's disruptive and abusive, and I don't think Core will have much problem getting an uninvolved admin to block briefly. If he goes to DRV civily that's per procedure. If he keeps fuming about it on his talk page, then it's unfortunate but self-contained, and there's no reason to push the issue there with him. Coredesat, hopefully you just disengaging works. Hopefully he calms down overnight and lets it drop or goes to DRV properly. I left him a note trying to get him to tone it down a bit. Georgewilliamherbert 03:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I did the DRV for him [88] Let the whining start in the appropriate place. SchmuckyTheCat 04:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Nintendude socks

Nintendude has been evading his indef block with a number of sockpuppets. Can someone take a look at this?--Isotope23 13:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Systematic Vandalism

Hi, i have a problem, Tajik is systematically removing or moving Turkic related articles.
He/she is so paranoid about pan-Turkic topics.
These are his/her systematically moved articles which i could realise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timurid_Empire&oldid=52064682 (Nothing was discussed, but moved secretly with irani teamworking)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rulers_of_Aq_Qoyunlu&diff=prev&oldid=55412192 (Tajik has moved whole article secretly with minor editing. Is this Minor editing? Nothing is discussed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ak_Koyunlu&diff=86761323&oldid=86761093 (Moved secretly by tajik. Nothing was discussed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qara_Qoyunlu&diff=prev&oldid=86761672 (Moved secretly by tajik. Nothing was discussed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seljuq_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=67227611 (Moved without enough discussing)

When a source do not defend iranic theories, even this can be a worldwide recognized source Britannica, Tajik rejects these sources. Please have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hephthalite. (The article of the Britannica is old, not really good, and in many parts not enough). However, if these sources present iranic theories, this time Tajik finds reliable these sources and gives referances from these like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timur&diff=prev&oldid=79934901 and this, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timur&diff=prev&oldid=79939260

Please stop this systematic vandalism and revert articles...
Note: I have written "Nation-based Vandalism" here, however nothing was done about this complaint, i'm questioning why? Isn't here Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Karcha 14:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't necessarily vandalism. Try dispute resolution. --InShaneee 17:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Say what is needed? I think you aren't a neutral admin. I think we have to put neutrality check to your adminship.--Karcha 19:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please try dispute resolution. Naconkantari 20:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This is your second tirade against the same user on this noticeboard in the last two days, both with almost identical complaints.[89] In fact, the complaint still is listed on the page (see 40 topics up, under "Nation-based vandalism"). Take Naconkantari's suggestion. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

From puerile to vicious in a week

Those are the edits of 24.151.77.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I could not tell if he's already blocked or not (there was a Bot update), but he should be. Thx. Thomasmeeks 15:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, he is not blocked. His edits may vary because this IP address is shared by many people. If he stopped after a warning (which he was warned on his talk page) he doesn't need a block. semper fi — Moe 16:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be best to delete this account's last edit from the article history, however. Newyorkbrad 16:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He has been reverted for his string of vandalisms in the past week. Am I expected to block or can I request and Admin. block? (My preference would be for the latter.) My reading is that he meets requirements for blocking. He is certainly heedless of warnings. Thomasmeeks 18:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thomasmeeks, someone stated above that this is an IP address that might be usable by many different people. If that is true, it can't readily be blocked because of vandalism that occurred hours ago, as the block would be more likely to inconvenience innocent people than stop the vandal(s). However, as indicated, I suggest deleting his last edit from the history of that article. Newyorkbrad 21:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But I don't know if the edit needs deleting. Vandalism like that is fairly common (ie. no personal information was released in the edit). We shouldn't delete anything that doesn't need deleting. semper fi — Moe 22:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you say it is a shared IP? I don't get that from the whois or RDNS. (Educate me) Thatcher131 03:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question - my tech knowledge is minimal, so I relied on Moe, but the WHOIS lookup does say "Comment: Addresses within this block are non-portable." So I'll join in the request for education. And I'll add that if this is a static IP it should probably be blocked for a good long time. Newyorkbrad 03:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologizes. It does appear that is a static IP. I must have done something wrong when looking up the IP address earlier. It does appear static according to a WhoIs lookup. semper fi — Moe 06:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking through my Internet browsers history, I typed in the wrong IP address adding an extra 2 at the beginning of this IP address pulling up very different results. Apologies again. semper fi — Moe 06:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Apocolocynthosis is adding unsourced, unverifed claims to the article Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. He claims he has a source but he doesn't cite it. He persisits despite multiple warnings Armanalp 17:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A new user who's

only edits are to create an AFD and makes edits like this and this (check out his last comment there, I'm afraid, I cannot AGF and would suspect it's a bit of a troll. --Charlesknight 18:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User just looks like a troll from my POV. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked Friday's 24 hour block and have indef. blocked due to an inappropriate User name. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it an inappropriate username? Anchoress 05:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's "Bill Clinton" in broken Italian. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but it seems like a stretch. Anchoress 06:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

We can't have a User:Bill Clinton, why should somebody be able to get away with putting into half-*ssed translations? User:Zoe|(talk) 06:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sure you know the rule better than I do. I'm not gonna try to argue with you about it. :-) Anchoress 06:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Messenger2010

I'm posting to get opinions on this case. This user has certainly exhausted my patience and many other admins have had to deal with him too. I would like to know what others think.

The problem started with a simple edit war in which one party began to use sockpuppets very destructively. The puppeteer doesn't seem to have an "original" account (he started as an anon IP editor), but two "main" accounts have been identified - User:Messenger2010 and User:AndyCanada. Currently all known accounts are indef blocked except Messenger2010. I wanted other opinions before indef blocking this final account.

Evidence

• Sockpuppetry: See the category of suspected socks. Checkuser has shown certain puppets and IPs to belong to this user, but most puppets have made their identity obvious by their comments and edits. See, for example, this set of edit summaries: [90] [91] [92], and this set of diffs: [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] (which constitute a 3RR violation to boot). Some socks are spoofs of other users; for example, User:Yankaas76 (spoofing User:Yankees76), User:Hello G. and Y. (referring to myself and Yankees76), and User:Messdock10 (spoofing User:Messedrocker). Some puppets have flippant, tauting names, such as User:WheeeeeePuppets, User:This is fun to be number, and User:I Plead Gulity As Charged.
• Inflammatory edit summaries: Example diffs [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105]
• 3RR violations: I reported this one, wanting another admin to make the blocking decision since I had also edited the article in question:
• Inflammatory comments: See, for example, this thread on my talk and in particular this comment. Also, from early in the case, this comment.

Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 20:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert plowman

Attack page qualifies as CSD A6; should be deleted immediately to remove telephone number from history. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. FYI, CSD A6 has been replaced by CSD G10. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User Hydroflexology

User:Hydroflexology appears to be on an unstoppable missing to add a redlink to hydroflexology on lots and lots of health related pages (Special:Contributions/Hydroflexology). spam3 warning issued. The article linked to was deleted as blatent spam [106]. Not sure it there is a spam noticeboard, or if this is considered vandalism: anyway, here it is. Notinasnaid 22:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I see he's been blocked now. Notinasnaid 22:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Cool cat/archive/2005/w/index.php

Same spam nonsense. Please blacklist the linked sites and delete the page after or else the bot will simply repost from a different IP. --Cat out 22:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering: why do these pages keep appearing in your user area? Extraordinary Machine 22:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No real idea... Could be one of the infamous vandals... Or it could be one of my stalkers... Or it could be a completely unrelated bot attack. Your guess is as good as mine... --Cat out 22:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

These pages appear in a lot of places. For example, search for "index.php" on User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedPD. —Centrx→talk • 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I am still disappointed that the spammer failed to properly type my username. --Cat out 23:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just your username. Other spammy keywords include "articles for deletion", "miscellany for deletion", "forum", "bbs" and "phpbb". I've listed it on my spam page. MER-C 02:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Sixty Six

Seems to be a single purpose account to troll MatthewFenton on Jericho articles. [107], [108], and his contributions as an IP address. Will ^{(message ♪)} 23:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect assumption. If one looks through Matthew's own talk page and its archives, you can see clearly the sheer number of complaints about his wanton edits. My contributions - especially the ones he's deliberatly expurgated - should be proof that I'm anything *but* a troll. Please try to research before you make the accusations, eh? Sixty Six 09:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Godwin's Law. Will ^{(message ♪)} 11:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Stargate "vandalism"?

The word f*ck is randomly scattered throughout the Stargate page, (except with full-out spelling). The placings are haphazard and often cut sentences in half (ex: "...cover stones of an ancient ring-shaped f*ck artifact..." HOWEVER, the offensive words don't appear on the edit page and therefore can't be normally removed. If there is anything that can be done, please do it.

Removed, though they were in the edit page. -- Steel 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User insists on posting OR

212.72.149.54 (talk · contribs) has been contributing material that is manifestly OR to several articles, including Phaistos Disc--it includes a byline and email address, and reads in part "My Results of Deciphering the Phaistos Disc". User has been advised on their user talk, but appears not to be paying attention, even after multiple reverts. Admin attention would be appreciated. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

An admin has reverted the edits and posted a note on his talkpage. So far, he has yet to repeat these problems. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

They have repeated it a bunch more times, from both that IP address and once now from 212.72.142.221 (talk · contribs). This is now a 4RR situation on their part and I'm reporting it appropriately... 12:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this article eligible for speedy

This started as an AfD with minimal input and has gotten messy. I nominated In My Heart on AfD and it was deleted after two editors supported deletion. The article was re-created several times and I tagged each re-creation for speedy deletion. That title is now protected. Now, Lilb1293 (talk · contribs) has moved another article to In My Heart (album) with essentially the same content as the deleted article. As this article has a history going back several months, I hesitate to list it for speedy, but it now is a re-creation of the deleted article. -- Donald Albury 04:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The AFD had its course. If its deletion is further contested instruct the users to take it to WP:DRV. Looks fine to delete it per the AFD. Cowman109^Talk 04:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the responsible user has yet to respond to any of the 29 messages posted to his/her talk page. -- Donald Albury 11:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. It's the same "article", it just happens to have a different db id... (That this version originally had a different title entirely demonstrates the wisdom of not keeping this sort of thing.) Alai 04:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of it. I felt I needed someone else to look at it. -- Donald Albury 11:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cedarhurst, New York

There is serious edit war at Cedarhurst, New York where a veteran user alansohn (talk · contribs) is trying to intimidate a new user Helical Rift (talk · contribs). For example Alansohn is calling this editors changes vandalism which is result in a block.[109] Both users have been uncivil, but perhaps the new user doesn't know about WP:CIVIL as the veteran user has raised the temperature of the argument. Alansohn has a history of referring to other editors as vandals and throwing around name calling see: Talk:B. H. Carroll Theological Institute.

An admin. needs to step in the middle of this violation of WP:BITE. Arbusto 08:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• This seems to already be resolved, other than Arbusto/oo's efforts to interfere with the resolution. User:Helical Rift had removed Category:Orthodox Jewish communities from the article Cedarhurst, New York, based on his interpretation of the category implying that the location was 100% Orthodox. After clarifying the scope of the category based on the examples of the communities already listed therein, Helical Rift was given several examples of communities with both Irish and Orthodox communities that are labeled as Irish, despite being under 100% (or 50% for that matter). Helical Rift then modified the description of the category to require a majority population. After several attempts at deleting and restoring the category, Helical Rift was told that the article has an explicit source for Cedarhurst being an Orthodox community. Helical Rift, then proceeded to remove all references to Cedarhurst's Orthodox community from several locations within the article, and then claimed that "article does not mention orthodox jewish communities..." in the edit summary. Helical Rift was warned that such removal was vandalism, removed it again and was warned a second time. After re-offering a suggestion that we label Cedarhurst as both Orthodox AND Italian, we were able to agree that this soultion would address our mutual concerns. Arbusto seems to have created this ANI in violation of WP:POINT. This issue seems to have been resolved with the user in question, but Arbusto/oo seems to have inserted himself into this issue, goading User:Helical Rift into further action after the situation seems to have been successfully addressed, even after Helical Rift pleaded to end this argument. Arbusto/oo has persisted in misinterpreting an explicit source that specifies Cedarhurst as an Orthodox community, deciding that the source is not valid because it does not state the exact words that Cedarhurst is an Orthodox Jewish community, a nonsensical standard that is not applied anywhere else in Wikipedia. This issue should be closed immediately, assuming that Arbusto/oo has no further need to interfere with the subject. Alansohn 08:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this as I posted the new incident below. I had already seen the altercation between them and warned them both about 3RR. They both deserve to be temporarily blocked for edit warring / 3RR and at least one should be cautioned for bad language. I have also nominated the category in dispute for deletion. --ArmadilloFromHell 08:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say that yes, the issue has been resolved but Arbusto did not "goad" me. I had strong feelings on the matter and discussed it with Alansohn. To me, the matter is closed and I apologize for my bad language. Alansohn was also changing the Cedarhurst page as well every time that I did so we are both at fault. This is an incident that will not be repeated Helical Rift 09:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Cedarhurst, New York issue seems to have been addressed with User:Helical Rift. All that stands open now is Arbusto/oo's efforts to stir up a false claim that the article does not meet the category's standards, after all, based on his blatant misinterpretation of an article that explicitly provides the needed source. Arbusto/oo's bad faith in this issue can best be seen at User talk:Arbustoo#Alansohn. Alansohn 09:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, this issue is closed. Alansohn is not helping the issue now by incriminating Arbustoo. Both of those editors have a past history that they need to resolve on their own. The issue at hand is between me and Alansohn. The matter has been dropped and again, I apologize for the absurdness of this. Helical Rift 09:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Silentbob4477

User:Silentbob4477 has once again given himself Barnstars. (Revision as of 2006-11-11T13:16:15) one he give himself, and the other is a copy paste with another signature. The is the second time he has done this. He also has a past history of contributing to the Percy "Nobby" Norton/hoax issue Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percy Nobby Norton - which he perpetuates on his user page. He did not sign his post there - but it says

This article was deleted and recreated on Nov 2 with the intention of providing a completely factual account of Norton's life. I am asking Starblind to give me 1 hour of my life back after he so blatantly deleted this article. STARBLIND YOU ARE AN ELITIST AUTOCRAT WHO TAKES PLEASURE FROM CRUSHING THE DREAMS OF THE WORKING CLASS WHO WILL ONE DAY RISE UP AGAINST YOU. YOU AUTHORITARIAN PIG-DOG. You have yet failed to provide a decent response explaining why this article was deleted again. I assure you, I will recreate this article under differnet names every week for the next year on every different IP adress I have access to. There is no limit to how much I will write and I warn you, a LOT of spare time has come across me and I will find it enjoyable to torment you motherfuckers.

Do we really ne4ed this? --ArmadilloFromHell 08:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at that AFD, it would also appear that there is a lot of, either, sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on also - with significant numbers of new editors only having posted to that AFD.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that also, if I knew how and had the time, I guess I could request a trace, it almost certainly would show something. --ArmadilloFromHell 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned public domain

Whilst looking through CAT:CSD I noticed a number of images tagged by the same person as {{db-author}}. This seemed a bit odd as some of them were quite old and the original update seemed quite clear where the images were to be used. The CSD for db-author includes the wording "added by its author and was mistakenly created", the age and previous usage tends to suggest that these fail that criteria. I was going to ask the author about these, but notice on his talk that as they were Orphaned public domain "these orphaned images may be subject to deletion as orphans. You may wish to add them to an article, or if they are no longer needed, they can be tagged for deletion by you as...". No mention of moving to commons. I'm not that familiar with all we do with images, but should we be asking people to delete perfectly good free images just because they aren't currently used? If so should {{db-author}} be being used in this way or do we need to (a) go through a full discussion (b) provide a different CSD to cover this? --pgk 08:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How about for images such as Image:Battery.png, we make a new page/category/IFD section for people to list orphaned free-licensed images? They can be checked whether they are suitable for moving to Commons. However, I am afraid that manual assessment of each one will be needed to weed out the improperly-licensed ones. I dislike the idea of slapping {{db}} tags on these images as good ones can be reused. Kavadi carrier 09:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

Would someone mind protecting this page? I was about to revert to the NPOV version once more, but figure its become an open edit war, and protection would be a better option even if its “the wrong version”. Thanks, Brimba 09:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for requests for protection. However, I have already made a request for you. Keep it in for for the future. - Zero1328 _Talk? 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Move

There was a survey to move the United States article, which was closed as a clear "oppose". Since, [110] was made, then the talk page was moved. Can an admin revert this, and block the user? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Luna was on the prowl, and has done it for me. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Konstable / AlternativeAccountK

I blocked AlternativeAccountK (talk · contribs) this morning because it was by their own admission an account used to get round a ban. I did not know, or care, what the original account was.

It turns out that AlternativeAccountK was a sock of Konstable (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who has now abused their admin bit to unblock AlternativeAccountK and continue to use that account:

"oh lookie, I just got blocked again, heh, lucky I couldnt be bothered filing to get my sysop removed"

Suggestions on way forward please.

Thanks/wangi 09:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Konstable wasn't banned. He has left the project for an indeterminate amount of time.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Still, misuse of admin powers. I'd call for an emergency desysop. – Chacor 10:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is any of this at all necessary when he's just popping back in to keep me in check and he was unfairly blocked each time?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a clear misuse of admin powers, and he clearly knew what he was doing. Admins have been desysopped for such before, and this shouldn't be an exception. – Chacor 10:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Either somebody has left the project or not, if they have not and are just "popping by" to keep you "in check" then they can do so with their original account. Such use of sock is at the best confusing and counter-productive - i'm not going to trawl through contribs to see if it was actually used to work around a bin, but that's certainly the implication made by the user themselves. Ta/wangi 10:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wangi should read policy before blockging an admin, see WP:SOCK - clearly allows legitimate socks. I have no futher intention to participate in this thread, as I have left this nonsensopedia already and that account was created as a legitimate sock to close off some business I had here without making edits from my main account. I will decide what most "productive" way for me to leave Wikipedia already, thank you.--Konst.able^Talk 10:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In which case you should voluntarily relinquish your admin powers, please. This was hardly productive, and was pretty disruptive, wheel-warring as well. – Chacor 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sysops are not supposed to unblock them selves .. even if its just a sock in essence you unblocked your self..? Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yet another counter-productive disruptive thread to make a big thing out of nothing and throw technicalities of policies around in the air. Lets make the thread as big as possible so we can keep our mind off this and this and oh oh oh! what is it called again? Building an Encyclopaedia? I was talking to someone, I was blocked by mistake by someone who thought I was a "banned user" (as he said in his edit summary). I am not a banned user, hence to finish talking I unblocked myself. Easy, end of matter. Now I'm gone, go ahead and re-block if that makes you feel better, I won't be editing anyway, I no longer have interest in Wikipedia's bureaucratic nonsense. If I want to talk to someone I'll use email.--Konst.able^Talk 10:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is quite confusing. The AlternativeAccountK account's first edit is about a prior edit by...? El_C 10:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:AltUser by the looks. The user and talk pages have been deleted. This was the user closing AFDs as deletes, though they weren't an admin, though now it turns out they were... My head hurts. --pgk 11:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it him? Why would he do that? This is not getting less complixcated... El_C 12:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the previous account that AltK was referring to. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is very sad. I don't know what this is all about, and I suppose it's not particularly my or anyone else in particular's business to know, but two months ago User:Konstable was an enthusiastic editor whose RfA had just passed 47/0/0, and now he wants nothing more to do with the place, and a number of others seem to be quite cross with him in return. I know that in any online environment people come and people go and one isn't supposed to get too worked up about it, but it's always a shame when things go this wrong this quickly, and I often find myself post-morteming these situations and wondering if a happier outcome could have been available if people had sought one. Would it be appropriate for anyone to shed any light on what the heck is going on here? Newyorkbrad 19:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

See the history of his talk page, before he removed criticism (as an anon, with edit comment "(sorry, but I don't want any more discussion. (I am Konstable, don't revert))". It looks to me like he decided to leave, and then created an alternative account, clearly labelled it as a sockpuppet account but not for which account, and proceeded to close delete AFD's in order to provoke a reaction (WP:POINT). When he got such a reaction, he responded abusively, and was blocked. He's now claiming that this is an example of WP:BITE even though, because the account was a self-labelled sock, that doesn't apply. He claims to have left but is creating socks to pursue the same point and using his admin abilities to unblock his socks. Frankly, I think he is playing a dangerous game and Wikipedia would be safer if he was desysopped immediately.-gadfium 19:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

72.69.86.39 continued lack of civility

User:72.69.86.39 seems to be trolling articles and being continually uncivil, calling people "dumbass" [111], saying "get a life", calling people dummies [112], calling other people's good faith edits vandalism [113], saying "wtf" [114], calling people prejudiced [115] and so on --AW 11:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have put a warning on his talk page explaining a bit more why (s)he should be civil and not attack. Keep an eye on them and if they persist I would suggest taking a look at our dispute resolution procedures. If they commit more personal attacks (they don't seem to be doing this much) then you may wish to take a look at WP:PAIN. Hope this helps, Localzuk^(talk) 13:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Bartusio

I reported Bartusio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to WP:AIV last night but it was removed for lack of warning. The user was warned a month ago up to test2 and was given a test4 (along with other warnings previously) on an IP 69.160.118.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I gave him a blatant vandal warning after its removal from AIV. It was also removed because the user appeared to have stopped ath that point.

The reason I went straight to AIV with this instead of issuing another warning is because of this edit [116]. The user recognizes he should be blocked for what he does yet warns of more to come. He has no plan to make good contributions to the encyclopedia. I was also concerned with the personal attacks on me and the general incivility. I'm not trying to report this here because daddy said no so I'm going to ask mommy, but I believe this is a vandalism only account who understands that he should be blocked, therefore, the step-by-step warnings shouldn't have been necessary. Metros232 12:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Mangojuice^talk 14:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with site CSS

There seems to be a problem with the Wikipedia site CSS; producing the effect as shown in my screenshot above. Anyone know what's wrong?? --SunStar Net 14:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Appears to be fixed now. --SunStar Net 14:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It also appears to be a problem when viewing categories as well. --SunStar Net 14:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a still a problem when viewing pages; the lines that occur when you type in == x == do not seem to occur when the page loads. This has been happening while I've been viewing pages here... anyone know what the cause is?? --SunStar Net 14:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I had that same problem until about 45 minutes ago when it suddenly fixed itself. —Mets501 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Zorkfan

User:Zorkfan is currently blocked for 31 hours. He is now editing on Messianic Judaism as an ip. When he has been previously blocked he has also used sockpuppets to evade his block. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page as it seems that the user has multiple/dynamic IP's. —Mets501 (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Izzy Dot

Please could someone review the edit summaries of this user who thinks it's OK to consisently use "gay" as an insult for something considered lame, and leave an appropriate warning for them. Thanks, Jenny Wong 15:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Mets501 (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User adding "No source" to scans of album covers

Tony fusi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding a "no source" tag to album covers even where the image has a fair use rationale (e.g. Image:The KLF-The White Room (album cover).jpg), and where the source is quite clearly stated as being a record cover. Who scanned an image of a copyright artwork is totally immaterial: the scanner doesn't acquire any copyright in their work, as it's purely a 2D digital representation of a copyrighted 2D piece. Only the owner of the album sleeve copyright has any rights in it. Thus, this tagging seems to me to be disruptive. Do others agree? --kingboyk 17:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge the author of the image needs to be stated (source) even if they don't own the copyright just like amazon is credited as the source for dvd covers etc. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's good practice at least, even if it's not required. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Kingboyk that this is (almost) pointless. The reason to identify the source is to make it possible to identify the ultimate copyright holder for purposes of investigating claims of fair use or infringement. In the case of an album cover the copyright owner is plainly obvious as the music publishing company. The intermediate source (Amazon.com or a person's scanner) is immaterial to the copyright. While you can make a techincal case that the record publisher should be cited by name (Capitol Records, etc) that seems like an overly technical point. Thatcher131 17:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm ultimately not clued up on copyright, but does this apply, perhaps? --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

technically, sure it applies. However, the rationale for specifying the immediate source is to enable investigation of copyright status. For example, a flickr image might be licensed with a version of creative commons license we accept, or a version we don't. With things like book, CD and DVD covers, it is obvious that the image is copyrighted, that the ultimate copyright holder is the publisher or distributor, and we are using under fair use, not a free license. In other words, specifying the source of most web images is essential to determine their real status; specifying the intermediate source of a book, CD or DVD cover adds nothing of value. I've said this in the past regarding TV screen caps; the identity of the capper has no bearing on the copyright status of the image. I would absolutely bow to the understanding of someone like Durin or Carnildo in this case if I am wrong, but I don't don't see any practical benefit to tag and delete such images, especially since they could be recreated in 10 seconds from Amazon. Thatcher131 17:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to understand your reasoning, it seems very logical. Perhaps we should consider asking someone more qualified to tell us about such matters? --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also add that the image I cited had it's fair use rationale scrutinised by the fair use eagle-eyes over at WP:FAC (it's used in a featured article). For this image to be tagged and possibly deleted because it doesn't say much about the source doesn't seem right to me. (Needless to say, I reverted on that particular image, but thought the issue worthy of discussion - which seems to be correct from the interesting thread so far :)) --kingboyk 17:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

See Template talk:No source/archive1#When not to use this tag and Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Archive 5#Album and single covers implicitly state a source for archived discussions of this matter. Thatcher131 18:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, excellent! :-) --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Vandalising the Madonna (entertainer) page. --VinceB 17:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please report this to WP:AIV in the furure. Thanks. —Mets501 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ckwee18

Has created advert article Tantra Gentlemen's Club and has repeated inserted mentions and links to in into Strip club and Gentlemen's club (traditional). I've tried to explain why he shouldn't do so, but of course he feels justified because he "met with the owners of the club". I don't want to violate WP:3RR so could an admin please follow up on this? —Hanuman Das 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the article and the references in other articles. —Mets501 (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Terryeo indefinitely blocked

I have indefinitely blocked Terryeo for these two edits: [117] and [118]. Both are flagrant harassment and intimidation - links to Scientologist websites smearing the people he's asking for comments from. Terryeo has already been put on personal attack parole by the arbcom, but this kind of intimidation and threat goes far beyond the pale, and needs to be stopped immediately and firmly. Terryeo has shown himself to be a dedicated POV pusher and bully. There is no sensible reason for his continued participation here. Phil Sandifer 17:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment here to say that Terryeo's blocking is well justified and long overdue. After the Wikipedia community has bent over backwards to allow him to still post to talk pages -- and, of course, he was completely free to edit articles not related to Scientology -- Terryeo spent the past seven or eight months pushing his ridiculous "personal Web sites are not allowed" argument on the talk pages, and even attempting to alter Wikipedia's policy to support his position. His real purpose, of course, was to "handle" the Scientology articles in a fashion that would remove all criticism of Scientology from Wikipedia. (Any of the regular contributors to the Scientology articles will certainly agree with me on this, I have no doubt.) He was never here to work towards NPOV and create a collaborative encyclopedia; hence, I am fully in favor of his being banned. The only down side to blocking Terryeo is the strong likelihood of Scientology following its (unalterable) policy: now that he's blocked, he will disappear from Wikipedia completely and a new sock puppet will arrive. This sock puppet will pick up where Terryeo left off, trying to find a new method of handling all of the entheta here on Wikipedia. --Modemac 18:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless he takes a crash course in spelling, grammar, logic, rhetoric and common sense, it won't be very hard to spot him. yandman 18:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom provides for "up to" a one year ban Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with indef, but the ban should be logged on the case page, and you might want to post a request for clarification in prior case, just to be safe. Thatcher131 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the block is well justified, especially so after an entire year of steadily abusive and disruptive behavior from Terryeo. BTfromLA 18:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that Terryeo's crude attempts at defamation go beyond that which was discussed at the Arbcom discusson and therefore there is no reason not to indef ban him (although, to be honest, I don't think that changing the block to one year will change anything, and it will please the more pedantic members of the community). However, I think that to avoid any complications, you should put a small paragraph on his user page, where it can be seen more easily (I only found this thread by looking through your contributions). yandman 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason that the edits containing these links should not be deleted? Newyorkbrad 19:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:74.96.3.131

This user has repeatedly edited UFC-related articles in a negative way, entering comments from the banal and fanboy-ish to the outright slanderous. This user's talk page will testify to this and they have been given a final warning before. Time to pull the trigger methinks. Many thanks -- Crazyknight 17:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

24 hour block applied by J Di

Do we have a personal info issue here?

I'm afraid that the editor may have exposed personal information here, but I am not sure. What is the procedure? -- Avi 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to say Gary Weiss editor, Mantanmoreland has said categorically that they are not Gary Weiss. Arniep 18:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you spin this [119]? Another typing error? The word for what you are doing is "harassment," for which you are digging into the trash pits of the usual attack websites.--Mantanmoreland 18:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

So it is just personal attacks and incivility, not personal info. That is a relief. Personal info needs to be revereted immediately. NPA/INCIVIL can be handled through normal channels. Although I am afraid I must concur with Mantanmoreland that Arniep seems to forget WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA on a rather regular basis. -- Avi 18:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And on just a regular basis you and Mantanmoreland go round reverting "in sync" and post sarcastic messages about vandalism with little smiley faces on userpages of anyone that has expressed criticism of Israel (actually the last bits just Avi). Arniep 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is called Freudian projection, Arnie . I use emoticons and smileys since body language cannot be transmitted in cyberspace. I daresay there are more non-Israel related smileys than not. Regardless, this is another example of your inability to assume good faith and what I am afraid is the projection of your own issues into others. -- Avi 19:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That is nonsense. You use the smiley faces most often when in dispute with muslim editors or people who have expressed criticism of Israel- please refrain from doing so and posting vandalism template messages telling people to "go and experiment in the sandbox" when they are clearly experienced and do not need to "play in the sandbox" and neither were their edits vandalism. Arniep 19:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that Avi is incorrect on this point [120]. Contrary to Arniep's feeble effort to spin it, this was an effort to reveal my supposed "identity." My understanding is that purporting to reveal the actual identity of an editor is a bannable offense whether the "outing" is correct or, as in this case, wrong. I've been attacked right and left in an attack website and tabbed the identity of a well-known author because of my edits in articles unrelated to this one. Arniep picked up those attacks and harassed me with it. He should receive the appropriate penalty, which is an indefinite block. P.S. The "in sync" business is absolute rubbish, as our respective contribs indicate.--Mantanmoreland 19:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

MM how is it your first edit today was to leap in and revert the Mahmoud Ahmedinejad article when there was an obvious edit war going on? Have you been discussing this edit war outside Wikipedia? Perhaps you would like to explain why you have used sock puppet accounts to edit the Gary Weiss article to keep it to your POV as proven here? You're the one that should be banned, not me. Arniep 19:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)