Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by C4455471 (talk | contribs) at 10:06, 27 March 2008 (that wasn't a test edit i told you!!!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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


    Deletion of Hindi script from the page Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind by Tuncrypt

    Tuncrypt (talk · contribs) keeps deleting the Hindi script from the page Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind insisting that the name is not Hindi but urdu. I have repeatedly shown him that the official language of this organisation was Hindustani which is derived from a blend of Hindi and Urdu. But he keeps insisting that I have not been able to prove anything and he is right and keeps on deleting the Hindi script. I have triede to reason with him in the past but have now given up. Can somebody please have a look at this?[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 10:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, please. Someone have a look at this. Rueben lys's poverty in logic and drama queen sensibilities are astounding. He doesn't explain himself, doesn't make an effort to understand me, contradicts himself, and utterly lacks good faith. To an entirely reasonable and dispute-settling explanation of mine, he replies with charges of it being a "nonsensical rant", a "quench(ing) of (my) bloated sense of knowledge", and something that does not "deserve a logical answer" so he "wont tax (his) brain". All throughout, he has without reason presupposed some sort of bias in me, "by your logics it is actually urdu because you want it to be". He seemingly shrugs off the existence of an attested grammatical construction simply because its page is currently lacking in size and scope (as if I'd somehow lie about it?), and then ends in a lame tactic of shifting the topic and throwing out petty insults and presuppositions, "you dont know anything about AHG, I doubt you know anything about language either. Make some constructive edits and try to improve this page instead of tring to make a point of your scholarship." What to do! Hopefully reason and sense win out. Tuncrypt (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And couldn't this have been put on an Indian topics-related noticeboard or something? Well whatever. Tuncrypt (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My Assumption of good faith I hope will be bourne by my earlier posts on Tuncrypt's page last year, linked here and here, which again addresses Tuncrypts next point that I dont explain myself. The posts in Azad Hind talk page, along with the previous two links should show wether I am exlaining myself or not. Tuncrypts dispute settling explanation is "it's not because it's not" with a strong hint of "'cause I say so". That he doesn't know anything about AH-e-AH is bourne by his insistence that it is urdu, while every historians knows that the official language was Hindustani, which is similar to but not the same as Urdu, having been mixed with Hindi. By logical reasoning the name of the organisation itself then would be hindustani, and not Hindi or Urdu. As for Tuncrypt's posts on the talk page, any alternative interpretations of his arguments other than "'cause I say so (think so, feel so, ie baseless, not referenced or supported by any evidence) are welcome. For the record, I dont have a clue what Izafat is, and the page does not really explain anything whatsoever. [[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 15:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    PS You're welcome to link this to Indian topic-related noticeboard. In fact I suggested to you long ago that you call an RfC if you felt so strongly about this.I felt this needed admin attention, and hence this is posted here.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    So basically, you yourself don't know anything about language, and yet you feel can rubbish others who claim to. And, then you go and say of me, "I doubt you know anything about language either", when a quick check of my userpage would allay such concerns: my edits are almost exclusively language-related, and I have single-handedly and quite proudly written the following pages: Gujarati language, Gujarati grammar, Gujarati script, Gujarati phonology, Hindi-Urdu phonology, Hindi-Urdu grammar, Punjabi grammar.

    So honestly, just read and try to understand, what I have said in the first place. I have added a tad bit extra in brackets, if that helps.


    Tuncrypt (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It was adopted as a Hindustani name. Also, since the official language was Hindustani, how can the name adopted be Urdu? Besides, words like Sarkar-e-Bartania (British Sarkar, British Government), mausam-i-garma (summer), Mahmula-i-Jahaz, etc have adjoining -e- (or -i-) in them, but these are hindustani words. My "I doubt you know much about languages either" is an expression of frustration, but I am quite certain you dont know much about Azad Hind, no offence meant there. You may have built a lot of language pages, which is admirable, but you will notice I have alomost single handedly built the Indian National Army content, and know enough to know the name was adopted for being Hindustani, not urdu because that would have upset Hindus, and not Urdu because that would have upset Muslims.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 17:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, those are stylistic Urdu constructions, chosen to be included as a part of the proposed Hindustani language, which was "a mix of Urdu and Hindi". But that's not the point anyway. I just want the Hindi script to be removed. Are you saying that "Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind" is Hindi? No, you aren't, so let the Hindi script be stricken. Take the Urdu script away too if you want (but I just think it'd help if it remained, because of, as I've said, the Perso-Arabic nature of the phrase). Tuncrypt (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad the two of you are close to settling this content dispute. User:rueben_lys, is there some adminstrative action you are seeking, or should this section be marked as closed? Relata refero (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am saying since since the language is derived from Hindi and Urdu, both have an equal impportance and should belong there. Perso-Arabic nature of the script I dont know, Hindustani Language of the script it is I do know. As you say you want the Hindi script removed, and absolutely cant see why, and moreover I think you're trying to prove a point here. I want the hindi script to remain along with the urdu script for the same reason that you think urdu would help, and more- on the basis that the two forms the basis of the language that it is in actuallity.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    Appropriateness of images of children posted by Dr harlwo

    New user Dr harlwo yesterday posted several images of nude children. I do not follow closely the rules and practices on images, but I am concerned about the appropriateness of these, as listed at [1].(updated link) Edison (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No licensing information, so that gave me an excuse to delete the images (faintly out-of-process, but, hey, desysop me, see if I care). This has been his entire contributions that I can see - some almost-kiddie porn. Trolling or WP:POINT. I suspect the latter, due to the hamfisted attempt to add it to the article. On that basis, I call WP:SPA and we'll see if he ever edits again. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That guy just violated US LAW. Someone call the FBI NOW. --Rio de oro (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you're being satirical, which is unclear, nudity is not pornography. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you're so terribly concerned, realize that even the admins are just volunteers, and your tone sounds like you're commanding everyone, instead of being polite. If you're so concerned, you can call the FBI yourself, or much more advisably, email Mike Godwin and ask him if contacting the FBI is the right course of action in this situation. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, this "crap" is against the LAW because this site is in the USA soil whic follows USA law. Doing this type of activity is a FEDERAL OFFENCE. If this crap is still here this web site might either get shut down or Jimbo or other guys on the Foundation Board might get a lawsuit or arrest for pedophilliaRio de oro (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to report this to INTERPOL , the FBI, the SECRET SERVICE, the US MARSHALLS.Rio de oro (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget Team America. They could use a change of scene. HalfShadow (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest you, er, don't. Not every image of a naked child constitutes child pornography, and I'd advise you to chill a little, and take a look at Miller v California for guidance. A potted, although incomplete and out of date analysis is here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No evidence, no luck, Rio. Calm down; if you keep at it the way you're going you're going to have arrhythmia before the year is out. ;) I'll echo RHE: just because it's a nude picture of a child does not automatically make it child pornography, but as I have not looked at the pics in question I cannot say whether or not they should be on Wikipedia. All the same, it is good that admins erred on the side of caution and deleted them; now people need to get out of Pulling Mode. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 23:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Nudity isnt porn as stated above. Btw wtf would the secret service do? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 03:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Protect the president from seeing it, of course. Deli nk (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nude pictures of minors, whether pornographic or not, can of course always be summarily deleted from Wikipedia. Bringing the site into disrepute, you see. And no I am not talking about renaissance paintings of nude cherubs and whatnot. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated above, nudity isn't pornography. I can think of four album covers that depict nude children. Not saying that Harlwo's images belong here or anything or that a case couldn't be made against their legality. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 07:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick comment replying to the editors above: WP readers in the UK could find themselves in serious legal trouble if they have images of nude children on their machines. The UK law is much stricter that the US law - people have been sentenced for compiling collections of images of children that were broadcast on uk television. (The images were unaltered, apart from being collected.) This isn't something that WP should deal with, but it's something that editors in the UK might want to think about. Especially if admins are being asked to look at an image before deciding to delete it. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were to phone the FBI about the doctor they would agree with me on this that this guy possessed pedophillia items. Rio de oro (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the block. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Latecomer - Support the block based on Guy's evidence. That... just ain't right. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:41, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry I'm late but I have to say - I don't know about the picture but the mention of the child's genitalia gives pretty direct evidence of what the editor wanted the focus of the picture to be. I support this ban and I back the summary delete. Padillah (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also a bit late, but I must agree: good block. Yes, the mention of genitlia in the filename (or is it in the description) is a dead ringer. That having been said, still, a nude image of a child does not necessarily equal child pornogrpahy. Take, for instance, the cover image of the Nirvana album, Nevermind. As DeadEyeArrow mentioned, that image (as well as many other album cover images) is not child pornography. Of course, that says nothing about the image in question though.
    As far as calling the authorities goes, rio de oro, you're jumping a little ahead of yourself. Not that it matters, but you don't come across to me as a U.S. citizen (based on your use of British spelling and lack of knowledge of U.S. law). So just for your knowledge, the U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Secret Service would probably not be hunting down child pornographers and/or pedophiles. That is the job of local law enforcement and, in the case of large illegal rings, the FBI. Regardless, though, Jimbo and the executives and directors of Wikimedia are not responsible if a user posts illegal material. Wikimedia cannot possibly know what's on every page of the site at every moment. Of course, if one of them does see something illegal on a Wiki page, s/he must take action -- and I'm sure s/he would. But there is not a legal expectation that they (or the operators of any other large sites -- e.g. Yahoo, Google, Microsoft message board sites) be psychic! So don't overdo it, Rio! Your tone is way out of line. You're not against anyone here. We're all on the same side, and I'm pretty sure there aren't any child porno or pedophile supporters here. So please pipe down a bit, and I'm sure we can all get along. ask123 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point was more to do with past problems of inappropriate pro-pedophile activism. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So if someone uploads images of minor children which depict their genitals, there is a policy which allows summararily deleting the images and warning the poster, with repeat postings leading to an indefinite block? The captions Harlwo used made the point that the genitals of prepubescent children were shown. Does that trigger specific legal rules in some jurisdiction where Wikipedia's offices or servers are, or does location matter? They were deleted on a licensing issue. Supposing there were no such licensing issue, could they still be summarily deleted? Edison (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy has been a staunch opposer of what he calls pro-pedophile activism, but he doesn't speak for most editors on this matter. His actions regarding such things might be supported, but this is due to the presence of activism in general, which is never appropriate on Wikipedia. We call that POV-pushing, and it wouldn't matter of the POV was pro- or anti-pedophilia. In response to Edison, no, the photo probably wouldn't have been deleted based on its title or description, assuming this wasn't sexually explicit (ie. depicting a sexual act or an emphasis on the genitalia, which is the difference between pornography and plain nudity). The user would have been warned or blocked for the context the photo was used in and/or for the associated text, however, as was done in this case. The deletion of the image, while motivated by its perceived pedophilia aspect, was separate and justified due to the license issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:25, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)
    Edison, I don't think we have a single written policy that covers the situation, but it's what we do. We aren't a hidebound institution. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD disruption by MickMacNee

    Merged to section below (WP:ANI#Opinion on an Afd re disruption).–08:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    Editor working for CAMERA’s ongoing POV pushing on that article

    Editor Gni has been documented to have edited the CAMERA article, and related articles from a computer in the CAMERA offices. See the WP:COIN report here On a WP:ANI complaint that was filed here, Gni was advised to avoid to "avoid editing the CAMERA article, or any articles related to that one," and it was noted "his protestations about not promoting Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America don't appear convincing." Following a a 3RR block and an additional block for Gni's use of an IP registered to CAMERA to dodge a block, Gni returned to the CAMERA article and related articles to continue to press the CAMERA POV. He is currently pushing contentious, pro-CAMERA edits on the CAMERA article (poorly sourced "praise" of the organization) as well as deleting without explanation sourced criticism of the organization. See this edit where Gni attempts to sneak a additional removal of criticism under the guise of reverting back his version.

    I do not wish to provoked into edit warring with an editor with a clear and serious WP:COIN issue. although there is an open case on WP:COIN, Gni's behavior is warranting this WP:ANI posting as well. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not commenting on the content issues, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with the number of forums in which this complaint is currently open. That said, when an employee of an organization is editing aggressively and racking up 3RR and sockpuppetry blocks for promoting said organization, it's a COI problem. I would suggest that Gni (talk · contribs) be warned of the terms of the Palestine-Israeli articles Arbitration case, which was intended to empower the community to help deal with this sort of thing, and placed on 1RR with free access to the talk page to advance their case and try to achieve consensus without edit-warring. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds eminently reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Go for it. And yes, it has COI in spades. You might also want to point out to the editor that it's also the kind of thing which can attract bad media publicity to his apparent employers (recall the controversial corporate edits unearthed by Wikiscanner). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since no one's shown up yet to accuse me of being biased, I'll leave this open a bit longer before acting. :) MastCell Talk 03:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent)This is NOT a new issue. Gni has been warned repeatedly of this, and should be given NO MORE leeway on this issue. See:

    • Where he is blocked for 3RR on the article in question, and several different users and admins try to counsel him, rather gently, on how to properly resolve disputes
    • Where he has tried to dodge the above block by editing anonymously:
    • Where he was warned about mischaractizing the edits of others as harrassing or vandalising:

    That softer measures have been tried, and apparently failed, shows me that we need to get more stringent on this one. Gni knows that what he is doing is tendentious and against consensus, and yet he persists in doing so beyond the patience of the community. He's been the subject of half-a-dozen ANI threads over the past month or so as well. We need to move on sanctions, perhaps a topic ban, on this one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, an alternative would be a complete ban from editing the article on CAMERA, though freedom to post and discuss on the talk page. This remedy could be rapidly expanded to a wider topic ban, under the provisions of the Palestine-Israel ArbCom case, if problematic editing continues on other non-CAMERA articles. MastCell Talk 19:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really stunned by this exchange. I don't understand Jayron32's aggressive attitude toward me. There was one day -- one day -- when I was blocked, initially for 3RR and then again because, before I realized I was blocked, I made an edits after forgetting to log in (which explains why I didn't immediately realize I was blocked). When I tried to explain this to Jayron32, his response was: "Eh..." That's all. Perhaps it's funny, but is that the way an admin is supposed to behave? Another time I put a rejoinder on Jayron32's talk page after being attacked by Boodlesthecat, Jayron32 replied: "This is the sound of me not caring..." But he certain seems responsive to Boodlesthecat's complaints, as his talk page makes clear. If an admin, to borrow his phrase, 'doesn't care' about one side of a dispute, is he really one to weigh in on the dispute? I would think absolutely not.
    So again, there was one day and one day only when I had been blocked. ("Racking up blocks," MastCell? Yes, I think that description is extremely problematic.) Boodlesthecat can't say the same. I don't think, then, that my blocking history is at all the germane issue.
    The germane issues are: The very title of this thread (chosen by Boodlesthecat) is prejudicial and misleading. Even after his attempt to prove COI on the COIN noticeboard amounted to very little (there was, I would note, a suggestion on that noticeboard that both Boodlesthecat and myself avoid editing this article for 30 days), he still titles this post as if his accusation was vindicated, and says as fact that I am "working for CAMERA." According to my reading of the COI page, it's content, and not mere allegations, that determine COI.
    More importantly, though, what about the content of my edits? What of the fact that I've relied heavily on the discussion page when making those edits? And what of the content of my arguments on the discussion page? These all show that I'm editing with good faith, and within the guidelines of Wikipedia, but that I'm involved in a content dispute with an editor whose behavior in this dispute seems no better (and IMHO much more disruptive and aggressive) than my own. He rejected my request for mediation by the mediation cabal. He admitted to not reading my carefully laid out case for an edit before reverting it. He made numerous other reverts of my contributions without discussion. He ignored the few precious moments of consensus between certain other editors, who tend to agree with him, and myself, and reverted changes based on that consensus. (e.g., of the top of my head, an anon with ip address starting with 68 agreeing that Koch's quote was praise and reliable, but Boodlesthecat continuing to revert as if it wasn't.) Almost every singe attempt to add to this article is reverted (and currently stands reverted) by Boodlesthecat, even though these were by all measures reasonable edits. Which of my edits suggest that I am subjugating Wikipedia guidelines to some alleged COI? Remember that putting up cited and notable material that might reflect positively on CAMERA is not the same as showing a conflict of interest. It is the same as editing according to Wikipedia guidelines, and keeping the article from being a hatchet job based on edits by someone who clearly harbors animus toward CAMERA. But to go back to my main point, which of my edits can one point to that show disregard for Wikipedia guidelines? If there is no critical mass of such edits (and I know that there is no such critical mass, if any at all), than why should I be banned at all? Why is the history of edits and discussion (or lack thereof) and resistance to mediation by my chief accuser, Boodlesthecat, ignored? Gni (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the content of your edits is solid, then you should be able to persuade other editors of that on the talk page. I'm proposing that you no longer directly edit the article, and instead confine yourself to using the talk page and potentially pursuing dispute resolution. There is sufficient documentation that a) you have a relevant conflict of interest, and b) you are editing the article in a problematic fashion. I'm going to impose this unless there are objections from uninvolved admins. MastCell Talk 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination)

    Okay, this AFD has gotten crazy and I'm at a loss as to what to do or who to talk to, but I know something needs doing. The deletion discussion has gotten massively off-topic, with what can only really be described as rants, and arguments that essentially are about policies and guidelines, or the researchers involved in the eponymous equations, rather than the article in question. The two main editors who are possibly doing something wrong as R physicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cheeser1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), although it's possible that only one of them is doing anything wrong; if that's the case, then it's debatable which. It's a bit too complex to summarise with diffs, but essentially Cheeser1 has been telling R physicist that he's not behaving correctly for an AfD, and either collapsing or moving to the talk page his less appropriate contributions, as well as one or two by other editors. Personally, I agree with those moves. R physicist has been making these rants in the first place, and moving things back from talk to the main AFD page. In so doing, he's been referring to Cheeser1 as a vandal and other less-than-complementary things.

    I'm bothered by the degeneration both in terms of civility, and the difficulty any admin will have in closing it. My view is that Cheeser1 was, at least at first, perfectly reasonable in his acts; R physicist was behaving unreasonably for an AfD, including a very uncivil and inappropriate original submission to AfD. The more important part is that the AfD discussion itself is now basically useless in terms of allowing an administrator to determine consensus. SamBC(talk) 13:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Do we have a nomination for a close of USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE as seen here? Or do you think this debate is salvageable? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's basically what I suggested in my entry in the (slightly strange) "preparing to sum up" section... I worded it differently, though. SamBC(talk) 15:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I note for the record that, despite the length of the debate (80kb and growing) (!), the article was nominated on 22 March; In theory, two days remain for discussion. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion makes me want to ask, “Where are we going? And, what are we doing in a handbasket?” —Travistalk 13:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was involved toward the beginning and saw R physicist kind of running rampant with endless bad faith comments and, in fairness, they may have been trying to keep up with the author who does not seem to have English as their native language and also seems to be somewhat of a newby posting in various forms and also confusing the AfD. Meanwhile (as is noted above in this section) there was some canvassing of sorts on the Russia wiki to delete the article. I suggest that Cheeser1's solution of collapsing R physicist's lengthy posts is acceptable since R physicist seemed unwilling to leave them on the talk page. I would also favor cleaning off the distracting formatting and removing duplicate votes (R physicist started some sort of summary section thus encouraging all to revote). If R physicist hasn't been warned and maybe shown what an AfD usually looks like that would also be helpful regardless if they R a physicist or not they are screwing up a process. A simpler alternative may be to close as a no consensus when appropriate and tell R physicist they can re-nom in six months and tell the author the clock is ticking so fix whatever problems the article still has. Banjiboi 13:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should probably point out that R physicist has also rejected the collapsing of his comments as, variously, "vandalism", "unauthorised", and probably some other things. It probably would be good for someone (uninvolved) to sit down with R physicist and talk about the whole thing, if they can persuade him to keep calm and not decide that he disagrees with the way we run the process and therefore will run it his own way. He's also completely refactored the page and is talking about having himself and the article author do "summing up". I'm about agreeing with the handbasket comment... SamBC(talk) 15:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To me the issue seems to rest with R physicist as the author seems cooperative enough. This isn't grad class or symposium roundtable it's an AfD. I'm now sensing that the AfD might be overly compromised if its wonkiness was offputting to creating concensus and dialog. In any case I too ask if an uninvolved editor could intuit a way to reach R physicist. Banjiboi 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In simple raw vote counting, here's what I see right now:
    • Valid Keep votes: 9
    • Valid Delete votes: 5
    • Invalid Keep votes: 0 (note that Ngn 92.46.72.14 was moved up to valid after he made an effort to clarify things further down)
    • Invalid Delete votes: 5 (2 SPA accounts, 3 SPA IPs)
    • Other votes:
    • Possibly rename: 1
    • Possible move (destination unknown): 2
    • Close as a train wreck and renominate with closer mediation: 1
    • Other side discussions: Long, mostly illogical discussion on bad faith; slightly more logical discussion on notability and how it relates to expertise; discussions about single-purpose accounts; a long tirade about how admins are abusing their power, blah blah, didn't bother to read it all; more attacks by the nominator against editors; a bonafide attempt to re-rail the discussion; back to rants from the nominator and resulting shouting matches; a confusing section where everyone's apparently supposed to repeat themselves?!?!
    Yeah, that's a mess. Right now, I'd have to say that if there is any consensus, it would be to keep, however there's more random babble in there than actual discussion, so I am all in favor of the speeding train wreck close as soon as possible. Don't really care one way or another when this gets renominated, but the bottom line is this is an incomprehensible mess. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I will point out that I came here for help when this started to look bad, didn't get any, and tried my best to handle the situation, leading to endless frustration, even more gigantic rants (check Hans Adler's talkpage for even more fun!) and me looking a bit like a prick even though all I'd ever been doing was to keep things in order (hell, I voted delete just like the nom wanted). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Closure

    Should the AfD discussion be closed early, as suggested above, as No Consensus / Trainwreck?

    I looked at the creation date for the discussion and noticed that it was done on March 20, not March 22 as signed by the nominator. Therefore, according to this discussion, I went ahead and closed it. —Travistalk 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Last word?

    I will say that good faith contributions can still quite easily be disruptive ones. Simply, R physicist may have been trying really hard to get across his expert opinion, but when he starts dropping longwinded essays about the nature of Wikipedia, especially when they stoop so low as to take pot-shots at Jimbo Wales, his behavior has crossed the line into "really not appropriate" territory. But yeah, so maybe he meant to do that all in good faith, but refusing to stop disrupting the AfD is the real problem. As an expert, he is entitled to alot in his career, in real life, etc. But on Wikipedia, experts do not get special privileges based on merit. This has been sacrificed to allow true consensus-based encyclopedia-building. Yes, experts are sometimes bogged down with nonsense from uninformed people. But sometimes "experts" aren't really experts, or they don't really have a good sense of what they're really supposed to be doing here, or (worst of all) they're completely disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I granted R physicist as much good faith and generosity as possible, and was completely willing to do so. But he refused to work within the guidelines of how we build our encyclopedia, and that just doesn't work (clearly). No amount of merit or expertise gives someone a free pass to disrupt AfDs or otherwise impede others' efforts to properly build Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that R physicist came at this one head-first and got so heated, but he was told repeatedly not to disrupt Wikipedia, and he outright refused. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD process is not the place to stage disruptive "wikireform" - especially when others ask you to stop and you make it 10 times worse instead. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (I think the "you" in the above comment did not refer to CH.) And I'm not sure the inappropriate comments in the discussion were all from one party; consider remarks such as [10]. DGG (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, let's compare Mt. Everest to an ant pile. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, Cheeser1, when you wrote "others ask you to stop and you make it ten times worse instead", I hope you were talking about R_Physicist and not me! In hindsight, I probably was wasting time--- at last my time--- by attempting to comment yesterday "from beyond the wikigrave". I think any "disruption" my comments may have caused was very minor, but I have removed them. ---CH (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was not talking about your comments, rather, the comments you were defending. That should have been (but apparently was not) clear. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Obuibo Mbstpo back again, I think

    See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Abuv the law. I initially accused him of being a User:Fredrick day sock (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, to which the user responded thusly. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:58, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

    (rv by Abuv the law, restored by Eq) So you decided to shoot from the hip again, eh? Abuv the law (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aww, don't blank that most telling response. To answer it, yes. The great thing about that is, if you're right, you look real good in the end. Based on your tone, I'm fairly confident. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:06, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
    Man, you really get a kick out of trying to piss me off, don't you? Abuv the law (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So Fredrick day was as sock all along? How disappointing. Anyone know why? ThuranX (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a sock of Obuibo Mbstpo, if that's what you mean. At least I don't think... He just socked from a bunch of IPs as far as we know. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:20, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
    Well, that'a LITTLE better, but still a shame. he was helpful on a feww articles I worked on. ah well. ThuranX (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) Things are really getting very weird here (Air Fortress is an OM sock, and I presume the IP is a Fredrick Day sock, although it also looks like it might be an OM sock pretending to be a Fredrick Day sock in order to further OM's point, whatever it is). I'm not sure admin action is required (I don't actually know what kind of admin action would be required) but it bears watching. Or ignoring. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Oh, and if anybody's wondering after reading that, there is a section31 (talk · contribs), but he appears completely unrelated to this nonsense. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    OM is (officially?) banned, so... I kinda assumed any further known socks from him are blocked on sight. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:13, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
    Yes. All socks have been blocked on sight. That wasn't my point. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I'm blocked and all that - but would some admins like to pop across to here, so that one way or the other things can be sorted out with User:Sarsaparilla. Either some way is worked out to 1) lift his ban, 1) he heads off to arbcom or 3) he's talked down and convinced to give up his socking. That has to be a better outcome than chasing his socks from day to day right? --87.112.87.215 (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He had his chance (the latest one, that is) here. He's exhausted my patience, and I daresay that I started off with a good deal more of it than did most. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OM is not "officially banned." No serious effort has been made to restore his access, and he can't even ask without creating a new account, because his Talk page (last open account he had access to, User:Larry E. Jordan), is protected. He is a blocked user. His block *could* be appealed to ArbComm or possibly resolved at some lower level, but the latter looks pretty grim at this point. I would estimate the probability of success for him with ArbComm at better than 50%, though. He only started socking, of course, this time, well after his Talk page was protected. It's predictable, folks. Take away legitimate means of communicating with the community, he will find illegitimate ones, thus creating more fuss and work. I tried to convince him to do otherwise, to be patient, but I was trying to swim upstream. He is not Section 31, you can tell from the IP in England. That's a name being used by User:Fredrick day for his IP edits, originally for bad hand edits while User:Fredrick day was still also being used. He forgot to log out with one edit and so his signature as Section 31 showed in an edit from Fd. Oops! He recognized it right away (as did I), so he abandoned the User:Fredrick day account, and has expressed an intention to continue as an IP editor. And he was being incredibly disruptive. Much of the fuss over Larry E. Jordan was fomented by him, including false, inflammatory descriptions of the message on the Easter Bunny hotline article or whatever it's name was. (Contrary to what has been said about it, that message could be broadcast over the radio without FCC sanction in the U.S. It's not legally obscene.) Given that, the rapprochement apparent at User talk:Air Fortress is startling, I don't know what to make of it. --Abd (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Your latest bit of verbose, vague, and pointless wikilawyering aside, OM is banned in the sense that no one is willing to unblock him -- again -- to cause more problems. Deal with it. --Calton | Talk 08:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear hear. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:45, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)
    Of course. I've discovered Equazcion cheering at a number of these "events." I will guarantee this: this user will cause a hundred times as much trouble blocked as he did unblocked. See below. But am I trying to get him unblocked? Look for evidence, I'd like to see it, perhaps I'm schizophrenic. I've simply pointed out the truth. "wikilawyering" is an offensive term, used by real wikilawyers to discount arguments from others based on truth and policy. Yes, he is banned in the sense described. However, such a ban cannot be used as an argument for any particular action, it was never formally decided; instead there was a riot and the police broke it up by hauling off the perceived agitator. Happens all the time. Occasionally it actually works, just as often, though, they get the wrong guy, or they merely get one of those fighting. Here is what I say about Sarsaparilla: he died and went to meta. May he rest in peace. Occasionally he may toss a thunderbolt down here. Rail at him and he may toss more. Your move.--Abd (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we discuss whether or not he should be banned? It looks like this has been mishandled at several levels, and that he's been framed for things it is now clear that he was not involved in. Going forward, has he actually done anything - prior to his block - that deserves being banned? —Random832 (contribs) 16:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    'Framed' is awfully stiff language. Could you be a bit more specific about what Sarsaparilla has been accused of doing that he was not involved in, and who has misrepresented evidence so as to 'frame' him? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered OM's blocks mostly unjustified (I'm not going to go into great detail as to which ones I thought we unjustified and why; suffice it to say that I'm reasonably certain that I'm the last admin who showed any interest in unblocking him). However, his conduct since the ban took effect has, in my view, been bad enough to retroactively justify that ban. It's like he was wrongly incarcerated for something and, while awaiting trial, broke out and shivved three guards. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would seem to be a tad dramatic as a description, I think. Was he "awaiting trial"? Let's suppose he was, though he wasn't actually under any sort of official parole or undergoing any complaint process against him. The real analogy would be that he had been falsely accused of numerous crimes, a judge found no cause to confine him, and even befriended him, but as he was leaving the courtroom, he made an offensive joke. And so the judge tossed him in jail and threw away the key. His "crimes" as a block evader are entirely related to evasion itself. He made a series of very legitimate edits to Parli Pro articles. None of these edits, were he not blocked, would have been disruptive. Should he be unblocked? By what standard would we judge? If I seriously wanted him unblocked, I'd be pursuing the process. If he asked me to, I would. He has not asked. What has happened on Wikipedia is that very dysfunctional responses to controversy and disruption have become routine. As I've mentioned, Sarsaparilla has died and gone to meta. I've visited him there and looked around. The phenomena we are seeing here are well known and described there, as they are in other places that are "about" Wikipedia. Sarsaparilla made all this clear to me, in a very short time. I'm grateful for it, and it may be that some day it will be appreciated. Yes, he's frustrating. So was Mozart. Fart jokes, in really inappropriate places.
    (I will also note that Sarcasticidealist offered to help this user to go to ArbComm, which was quite proper. I can understand this administrator's frustration over the unenthusiastic response he got. At that point (yesterday?), Sarsaparilla had become really, really pessimistic about this community and the possibility that he would be able to continue to work here. It's a reasonably sane judgment. For him, the atmosphere has become entirely too poisonous. I know him fairly well, I understand him because I am like him, and, at 27, I don't think I could have pulled it off, walking the straight and narrow, never making any fart jokes. Or whatever. Even now, I can slip, just not nearly as often. I am really intensely resisting representing a very rude noise. After all, this is Serious Wikipedia Process here. Quick. Hit Save Page! --Abd (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Abd (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarsaparilla is getting packed up and ready to go. 129.174.91.116 (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of that can be speedied, I would imagine, as db-author. No need for MfD drama over it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy away! (Whoever has admin privileges) 129.174.90.122 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone help me in keeping up with all the IP socks appearing over this thread? I just blocked 129.174.91.121 who I'm confident that is Sarsaparilla. Yesterday I blocked 87.112.87.215 who is most likely Obuibo Mbstpo, in any case if both of these users admited to being socks, how come nobody blocked them inmediately after doing so? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to lessen, hopefully, a little confusion, there were a series of accounts used, one after another (not simultaneously) by Sarsaparilla. They were explicitly linked and acknowledged; this would be Ron Duvall, Absidy, Obuibo Mbstpo, and Larry E. Jordan. For a user to abandon one account and create another is not grounds for a block, in itself. However, the accounts created to evade blocks, essentially throw-aways, are another matter. With the creation of the Jordan account, this user agreed to not use other accounts. However, having been blocked for what would ordinarily be a trivial offense not even resulting in a warning, he may, apparently, consider that agreement to be void, since the community did not keep up its side of the bargain. There is far, far more disruption here caused by the block and responses to it than by any original offenses, and I don't think this is rare. It will usually fade with time, though.--Abd (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    87.112.87.215 is most emphatically NOT OM; it is almost certainly Fredrick Day--who, incidentally, has caused way more in the scope of actual problems than OM/Larry Jordan/whatever he's going by now has ever caused. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fredrick_day
    Incidentally, I must ask again: have any of OM's socks ever actually caused any trouble? Because really, blocking someone for evading an illegitimate block is itself an illegitimate act; the proper course of action is to remove the initial block, or at least leave the socks he has to create to get around it alone. Fredrick Day's socks were harassing users (mostly myself), vandalizing users' comments (mostly my own), and generally causing trouble. All OM ever did was put forth a bunch of good ideas that ruffled the feathers of some people who have a vested interest in the seriously corrupt status quo.
    And so yes, I will come right out and say it: Any action taken to evade an illegitimate block is perfectly legitimate, and any action taken to enforce an illegitimate block is itself illegitimate. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't always WHOIS all IP addresses that come my way, regardless the 87.112. account traces back to England, thus it is very likely that Fredick Day is behind it, as far all the ammount of disruption, just today a bunch of these socks broke 3, 4 and 5 RR by edit warring just for the sake of pestering Equiazcion. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidently a range block is in order, regardless I'm dropping out for now, not in the mood to play Whac-A-Mole. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently rangeblock isnt an option because these are shared IPs of a university. Perhaps an abuse report. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:13, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah. Just do a whois on those IPs, and you'll see the problem; 129.174.0.0/16 is George Mason University. We've got a lot of good contributors from there, and one person who really seems to want us to have to inconvenience his classmates. The others are dynamic IPs, which doesn't help much either. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've worked with both Sarsaparilla and OM in the past, and wasn't aware they're the same person. I was about to ask about the proof that OM was Sarsaparilla. Then I saw this. [11] WTF. This guy is seriously abusive with sockpuppets. I hope somebody does play whack-a-mole to make sure all of these sockpuppets are gone. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? As long as the sockpuppets aren't actually used for any nefarious purposes (which they weren't), why does it matter how many he has or the circumstances under which he creates them? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (dedent insertion)Continuation accounts are not really sock puppets in the traditional sense. I don't know if he did it this time, but in the past, Sarsaparilla would spike an account when he created a new one, so he couldn't have two active accounts simultaneously. Zenwhat fell for the propaganda. Sarsaparilla was a user who, having made voluminous contributions to this encyclopedia (he had prior accounts, one of which is not difficult to find), decided to work on policy and process, and he discovered just how unrewarding this can be, to say the least. He made a (small) mistake -- he wasn't even warned about it, if I'm correct, it was a joke, in fact -- and that may have motivated him to change his account. An SSP report was filed, though it was utterly and blindly obvious what was going on, all one had to do was glance over the contributions, it wasn't concealed, that User:Ron Duvall was the next account. For reasons I won't explain, there are privacy issues, he then changed his account again, this time explicitly acknowledging the connection in the account creation summary for User:Absidy. This is not what true sock puppets do. Frustrated over the rather amazing response he received to WP:PRX he did some odd things: he dropped a notice on the Talk page for every member of ArbComm and a couple of administrators. He was warned to stop canvassing. He said he was done, and put an image of a finger on the Talk page of the warning admin, who blocked him. First block. No prior blocks, in over two years of intense editing. So ... that admin relented, let him come back (with some outrage expressed by others about allowing this abuser of sock puppets to return (even though there was not, until the block, any sock puppet abuse, and not even after the block, the new accounts were not for simultaneous or alternating use). But there was now a body of users really out to get this guy. He edited as User:Obuibo Mbstpo, 1600 edits in about three weeks. At the end of this, he created a hoax article, as a jape, Obuibo Mbstpo. Speedied. And promptly blocked. This time, more legitimately, though normally such an action would result in a warning, not a block. He lied about having a source. Eventually, he admitted having lied and was allowed to return. Now editing as User:Larry E. Jordan, he was once again active with parliamentary procedure articles. But apparently, I'm going to guess, having a bit of fun, he created the Easter Bunny Hotline article. This was not a hoax, it really existed. And then User:Fredrick day took it to WP:AN/I, using a bad-hand IP account. And lots of, shall we say, disinformation and misinformation was supplied. For what would ordinarily result in a simple speedy, probably no warning at all, he was blocked again. If we look back over it, a huge amount of disruption was resulting from his participation here. Who or what was the cause of all this? If we think the answer is "Sarsaparilla," we may have a piece of an answer, but, quite clearly, not the whole answer. Whatever his crime was, it was not "sock puppetry." The only arguable socks would be accounts used while blocked. Like many his age, he has a "you can't make me" attitude toward authority. This is one reason why using indef blocks to maintain order is a classic Bad Idea. It creates far more disruption than it prevents. This was not a user who attacked people, he was not ordinarily uncivil (with one exception mentioned, which was not a personal attack.)

    As someone who came to appreciate his contributions, which go deeper than a few articles, and who came to consider him a friend, I regret the troubles his presence has caused some administrators, who are faced with enforcing blocks. But he never harassed users, he never made personal attacks (the finger on Jehochman's Talk page was the worst thing he did, and that is a classic message of defiance of authority, which most societies have learned to not treat as actually violating law but only decorum). I know for a fact that he was here to benefit the project and not to disrupt it. Now, he has died and gone to meta. Mostly. He's trying to get his files deleted. I'll address that with the MfD.--Abd (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It'll be difficult to whack-a-mole due to the shared IPs. I think an abuse report would be more useful. Let the institution deal with him. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:11, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)
    While what I've seen (not to mention the sheer drama on here for our entertainment on a daily basis) seems to merit the ban, I would like somebody to actually make a (concise) case for his being banned that doesn't simply relate to the drama on here. My understanding is that his main disruption was creating a series of rolling non-concurrent accounts which may have been used to stack a vote which wasn't going to change anything anyway, since it was a completely new idea he had raised - I'm thinking back to delegable proxy or whatever it was called. I'm not sure of the exact events after that, except that he ended up blocked. He then sockpuppeted around the block until we finally agreed to let him have the Jordan account. Then he created hoax articles and got banned on that. Is my interpretation correct, or is there bits that need to be added? Are the arguments against his being banned simply that there is no meaningful "for" case in their opinion? As a relative bystander I am guessing I'm asking these questions for more than a few people. Perhaps it's up to us bystanders to actually help in resolving it now. Orderinchaos 07:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decorative fair use

    There is presently an edit war at Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) regarding the use of a fair use image in the article, which I consider decorative (as it doesn't comply with the NFCC). Comments would be welcomed. Matthew (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that Lerdthenerd (talk · contribs) should have his rollback removed, as he's used it in a dispute and not for regular vandalism. Qst (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just an FYI, Matthew has violated 3rr here:

    This is due for a 3rr block. Lawrence § t/e 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the idea of a block, and utterly disagree with removing Lerdthenerd's rollback. Matthew was behaving extremely badly and strangely. I also think that 48-hr full protection would be good. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I haven't. I've been enforcing the non-free content policy, which is exempt from 3RR. Matthew (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, removing clear vios is exempt. Five users, one an admin, disagreeing makes the issue unclear. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3rr report filed here for the procedurally inclined. Lawrence § t/e 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, clear violations. Exactly what this is. You/they may disagree with the policy (as you did last time) but that doesn't make the violation any less clearer. Matthew (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I looked up what clear meant. I got: "free from confusion or doubt; to go unchallenged". None of those definitions are met. There is confusion amongst the five users, one an admin. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you challenging the policy? If not then I'm quite sure this is a clear violation of that policy. I'm sure there's no confusion or doubt as the policy is quite straight. Matthew (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm clearly not challenging the policy. I guess that the word "clear" appears in that sentence for a reason; namely, to exclude ambiguous cases. Would you agree with that point? I also suggest that if one non-admin thinks an image is a vio, and four non-admins and one admin think that it is fine, then that is ambiguous. Would you agree with that? —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps I'm blind, but where again does the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria say you get a 3rr exemption? BLP spells that out, this does not. Lawrence § t/e 20:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Second point under Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions: "reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies;" Don't see it on the NFCC page, but the exception is there on the 3RR page. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what I see right here, it is not a cut and dry situation as there are people who agree and disagree with the decision? That is not a free pass to begin edit warring. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Just like BLP, you don't automagically get the exemption, if you are challenged. Blocking for 3rr violations on disputed NFCC and BLP is perfectly valid if it needs to happen. Using an acronym is not a magic shield to revert wildly. Lawrence § t/e 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone finds him or herself edit warring against 2+ registered users (and in this case 5? users), the "clear" violation standard is not met and 3rr needs to be enforced. No free passes, R. Baley (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Larwence and R. Baley, it says clear copyright violations. When one is dealing with users in good faith who think something might be within our fair-use criterion that's hardly clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also the reason why pages like fair-use review exist. I've already told Matthew to use it if he feels it violates NFC. — Edokter • Talk • 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is not decorative fair use, then what is? How is the image even vaguely connected to the article? This must be the first time I've ever said this, and probably it will be the last - but Matthew looks to be right. Moreschi (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this too? Or for Meet Kevin Johnson, Pilot (Lost), The Hunting Party (Lost), or The Man from Tallahassee? Are we removing all images from episode articles? Lawrence § t/e 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite possibly. The fair use media has to connect with the article, as at Concerto delle donne. If not, it's decorative. Moreschi (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is part of the episode; how much more connected does it need to be? Also note the word "decorative" is nowhere to be found in WP:NFCC; that is just a buzz-word used in arguments to present a vague notion of "breaking a rule" that actually isn't there. — Edokter • Talk • 00:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, when editors refer to a decorative non-free image, that is in reference to NFCC #8: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. If that is not met, then it is a decorative non-free image. Given that, I agree with Matthew that the image on Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) is not warrented, as the random screenshot of this epsiode in an infobox does not increase readers' understanding of the topic. — Κaiba 02:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectively, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and no but "standard infobox screencap" is not an exemption from NFCC. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Something else I hadn't realised: TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) is Porcupine (talk · contribs) and hence also Rambutan (talk · contribs). 81.99.113.232 (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with NFCC#8 has always been "who judges". The reader of the article (which the criterion is supposedly meant to be thinking of) or the editor of the article? Often you get editors who are not readers of a particular article, judging on the basis of free content ideology and not the article content. Not always, but sometimes. Argument on the necessity of the image for the article tend to end up with one side going "it is necessary" and the other side going "it is not - oh, and by the way, this is a free content project". Time and time and time again. Carcharoth (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The question I always ask is "if I took this image out of the article, would it impair the reader's ability to understand the content?" Ususally, the answer is "no", and so it is in this case. That's not to say that all episode screencaps fall into this category, of course. Black Kite 10:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And to reply to Cacharoth, those who state "This is a free content project" are entirely correct; one may see that simply by looking at the logo at top left. "The free encyclopedia" does not mean "The encyclopedia one may read without being charged money", it means "The encyclopedia composed of content which may be modified, copied, and reused without restriction as to who may do so or for what purpose it may be used". This project is intended to be free content, and to be an encyclopedia. In a few cases, something nonfree is so important to the "encyclopedia" part of that that we can overlook the fact that it violates the "free" part of the mission. But that's not the normal case, and free content is every bit as important and critical a part of our mission as being an encyclopedia. A persuasive case must be made that a nonfree image is critical to the understanding of the article's subject, "the infobox needs a picture" is not such a case. Editors should be judging based on "free content ideology", this project is based upon free content ideology! Anyone not doing so is remiss. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And if non-free content is appropriately labelled, it can be filtered out and the free content can be "modified, copied, and reused without restriction as to who may do so or for what purpose it may be used". Any re-users of our content need to be aware of this, and also to be aware that what we say is free may not in fact be free. Can you guarantee that all the "free" content is actually free? If we have non-free content labelled as such and managed (ie. kept to a minimum), and are aware of when it becomes free, we can increase free content that way. Synergy between non-free content and free content can increase the amount of free content. ie. people write more when they don't have the distractions of an ideological image battle going on around them. In terms of images, long-term stability, rather than an incessant battleground, should be the aim. And since there will always be some need for non-free use, the proponents of removing all non-free use (and there are quite a few around, there are userboxes and banners about this) are disrupting the aim of reaching some form of stability, where other tasks (eg. BLPs, featured articles, etc) can be worked on. Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This has happened before with Doctor Who articles (which, truth be told, are actually pretty strict with FU compared to other TV shows), same editor, on Utopia (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Seeing as the episode airs in ten days (and 40 minutes) [12], we shouldn't get beat up about the image - the earliest the image can be deleted in without causing a fuss is the 3rd (seeing as an I7 deletion will be hotly contested). I think what's more worrying is the fact that: a) the mindset that "if only living people are in an image, it's RFU", b) that people are trying to dissuade editors from trying to justify its fair use, c) the editor who removed it has a rather murky history with fair use image (Utopia edit war, VotD edit war, mass G7s), and d) Matthew said on MSN that he was "going to start an edit war". Sceptre (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree that a 3RR block would normally be appropriate here. However, the page is now protected, so I'm uncertain. If Sceptre can prove his point d, the block should issue anyway because this would then have been shown to be willful and intentional disruption, and in the long run such behavior is prevented best when sanctions are a consequence of intentional disruption. GRBerry 17:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will, because an episode will air in x amount of days is not an acceptable excuse to flout the NFCC. I'm also interested when I supposedly said "going to start an edit war"? That's just plain... naughty. Either way, I'm guessing I "said" (in this fictional universe) "You're going to start an edit war." Matthew (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not saying that it's an excuse to "flout NFCC", it's a reason why the image shouldn't deleted. Wastes everyone's time (like this thread) And you know you said it, don't bother lawyering out of it. Sceptre (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Merle Terlesky

    Merle Terlesky, who corresponds to Merlet (talk · contribs), made yet another legal threat regarding the picture that had been on his article just hours after coming off his original block for making legal threats earlier. The fact that he did so using an anon IP is particularly troubling in my view. Accordingly, I have blocked Merlet indefinitely, and blocked the IP for 31 hours. Feel free to review this action.

    However, there is a larger concern at play here--his demand that the picture be removed from his article for safety reasons. The logic of this claim is, to say the least, disturbing. The current interpretation of WP:NFCC does not allow fair-use images in BLPs. I'm not sure we want to open up the possibility of allowing living people to demand that pics of them be removed, even if no reasonable person could claim that the pic could possibly be threatening. Blueboy96 20:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's probably best not to over-react to legalese posturings from article subjects, just point out to them that it's easier to work with us than against, and if they really want the picture removed then - in the short term at least - it's probably wise to do so, to calm them down. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense ... I could see removing the picture if it claimed that he was standing in front of his house, but in the short term, it does make sense to diffuse the situation. Still doesn't excuse the legal threat, though. Blueboy96 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hypothetical possibility to consider: some jerk on a web site with a cult following says "hey followers, I want you to kill this guy. he is out in public a lot, and you can find a real good picture of him on Wikipedia!". Suppose someone tells the subject of the threat about this. Isn't it just possible that this might make him a little nervous about having a real good mug shot publicly available for all the potential thugs? But what is that to us? If he is famous, then his picture must stay in the article, obviously. Loren.wilton (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolute statements of principle like this are rarely helpful in resolving an issue. Removing an image is no big deal, even if it is then debated and reinserted. Do try not to be needlessly aggressive towards article subjects, however dislikable they may be. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hypothetically, that person could be, let's say, Tony Blair. So should we remove his photo? What if anyone who wants to know what he looks like can go and see photos of him - and perhaps the same photo - somewhere else? Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should point out that this guys picture is already publicly available in several places including his own website. It is possible he does not like the idea of a freely licensed picture anyone can use, but I can't be sure. (1 == 2)Until 18:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs)

    Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) has gotten into a debate with Prester John (talk · contribs),[13] Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs)[14] and CormHamster (talk · contribs)[15] over whether the Jihad Watch article should have Islamophobia as a "See also" and be included in the Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. In response to their objections that these inclusions are neither well-sourced nor NPOV, Sennen goroshi is now removing the terms "white supremacist", "hate site", and "neo-Nazi" from the Don Black (white nationalist) and Stormfront (website) articles (e.g. [16] [17] [18] [19]), claiming they are not NPOV, despite rather copious reliable sourcing attesting to these designations. It is unclear to me whether this is simple WP:POINT, or whether Sennen truly supports these individuals and websites. Most recently Sennen has stated that Yahel is "well known" for his "delight in gaming wikipedia and making changes purely to antagonise people", and has suggested that Yahel should get a "perm block" in order to "make wikipedia a little easier for the legit editors"[20] I'm guessing that Sennen fails to see the irony in his words, and wondering if some sort of remedy might, in fact, be more appropriately applied to Sennen goroshi himself. Jayjg (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect this user is only editing Jihad Watch because he/she was in an earlier dispute with Prester John, and was stalked him here. See for example: [21][22][23][24][25] It seems this users methods of resolving disputes is to stalk others. With CornHamster, this user attempted to harass this new user by tagging his userpage with the single purpose account tag, unalbe to stalk him because he is a new editor who hasn't edited other pages yet. [26]
    I think it is also important to mention that this user originally insulted me by refering to me as a " With all due respect, is there any reason for your dislike of Muslims and Pro-Whites?" [27] thus implying in her comment that he/she thinks I am prejudice against muslims, and that I am somehow anti-white, and has made similar controversial edits to Jew watch. [28][29] Yahel Guhan 06:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fundamental problem here is that there are very few sources for Jihad Watch in the first place. It's a fringe website that has appeared in a handful of news stories. There are issues here with WP:PARITY; most sources simply ignore this website completely. I think it should be merged back into the Robert Spencer article. None of this is to defend the particular user's actions, just to comment upon the underlying issue. *** Crotalus *** 13:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am so sorry if my edits have caused problems for people, I am just finding it hard to understand why certain terms which could be considered to be NPOV are constantly removed from Islam related articles, but constantly placed on articles refering to other races. I have editors with more experience than myself telling me that these terms are not acceptable, but the same editors are telling me they are acceptable in other articles. I am not trying to prove a point, I am merely trying to make the standards in wikipedia consistant no matter what the article is refering to. I do however take offence to people saying I am trying to "harrass" an editor by placing a tag on his page, I placed a single purpose tag on his account, because the user spent all his time editing two articles, both closely related to eachother, to me that is a single purpose account. It is not a new user, it is merely a user who has decided to make a new account, so I am hardly picking on someone new. On the Jew-watch article, I removed the term "hate site" because I assumed it was not quite NPOV. I don't think my actions are any different from those of any other users, apart from the fact that I have no agenda, no affiliation with any of the groups refered to, and that I am only looking for consistency, not some form of bias to reflect my personal beliefs. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The more I look into this, the more it stinks. I was unaware of Jayjg and who he was until this report was made. I was dumbstruck when I realised that this report was made by an admin. I happened to stumble upon it, well considering an admin made this report, it would have been nice if they had actually informed me of its existence, or perhaps left a simple message on my talk page to give me a warning about my actions - but no, for some reason it was not considered a good idea by the admin who made this report, to inform me of the report or their opinion regarding my actions..nice. real nice.

    To assume good faith in this is getting a little hard, the admin who makes this report about my interactions with user: Yahel Guhan, happens to have awards from guess who?...well Yahel Guhan of course, am I supposed to think this is just a coincedence? or is it a coincedence that this admin has numerous edits on Jewish related articles (just like Yahel Guhan) and is kicking my ass for using terms such as "Islamophobic" from an article about an anti-islamic website, while also kicking my ass for removing terms such as "hate site" and "neo-nazi" from a white-pride site? These are content disputes, but some editors/admins seem to have personal agendas when dealing with these articles. As an admin jayjg could have blocked me straight away if he thought there was the need, but I guess people would have seen the obvious bias in an action like that, so it is easier for him to make the report, and have someone else do the blocking...

    Until today, I had no issues with wikipedia and the admins, editors like myself all have different opinions and attitudes, and I had total faith in the admins of wikipedia to keep check on everything/everyone, I have been blocked twice, 12 hours and 24 hours, and in both cases I emailed the blocking admin to say that I did not hold it against them, this report however is bullshit(sorry, I cant think of a more suitable term) and is not what I expected from an admin. Block me for 12 hours, 12 months or take no action against me, I will stand by these comments whatever the result of this report is.Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lets be honest. You saw this report because you saw my contribs, and noticed I commented here. Now you continue to stalk me, in spite of seeing the report about you doing so: [30][31][32][33][34][35] Yahel Guhan 15:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be honest, you clicked on my contribs and followed me to the Jew-watch article, and reverted my edit, so I decided to have a look at what other articles you had followed me to, and there staring me in the face was an ANI report with my name on it. Please dont accuse me of stalking you, when you have followed me to that article just to revert me. pot/kettle/black. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jew_Watch&action=history Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um no. I had the article on my watchlist ever since this Kirbytime sock edited it. (and I have edited it before [36]) Yahel Guhan 16:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This user now resorts to canvassing other editors who share his/her view on the issue (claiming they are unbias)[37] Yahel Guhan 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ← It looks distinctly like Sennen goroshi, having gotten in a dispute at Jihad Watch, then followed the opposing editors to articles on white-supremacist topics and made edits designed as tit-for-tat. Whether this is a bigger violation of WP:POINT or WP:STALK is debatable, but either way it's not appropriate and I agree with Jayjg's formulation at the top of the page. The canvassing doesn't look too good either - if Sennen wants outside input in an editing dispute, he needs to use RfC or WP:3O, not friendly editors' talk pages. I'd consider this a warning to Sennen goroshi; if this behavior (following other editors, WP:POINTy editing, and canvassing) doesn't stop right away, then a block would be appropriate. As far as specific content disputes, dispute resolution is thataway. MastCell Talk 16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Now what were you saying about me stalking you? How do you happen to see that edit? Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had content disputes with that user before (I opposed her RFA [38]). Yahel Guhan 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, so who were you stalking? me? her? both of us? Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on. It's not "stalking" to click on user contributions and notice canvassing. It's stalking to follow someone to articles they edit in order to expand a dispute with them. Sennen, I would strongly suggest you drop this. MastCell Talk 16:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Drop this? I didn't make the report in the first place. I didn't canvas an editor, I left a message on the talk page of an admin who is a member of WikiProject Islam, because of the bias on an Islam related article, I certainly didn't leave a message on some troll's talk page, asking for help in an edit-war. I don't really mind people checking my contribs. however if as you say stalking is following someone to articles they edit, then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jew_Watch&action=history is most certainly stalking..which I also don't really mind, I just find it ironic that the editor who is complaining about stalking, is doing exactly the same to me. The editor who complained about me looking at his contribs, in order to locate this ANI report, is doing exactly the same to me. But thanks for the advice, I appreciate people advising me, I however am highly annoyed by this report and the holier than thou attitude of some of the people in it. It might be in my best interest to drop it, I realise that, however apart from reducing the likelyhood of me being blocked, it wont change the way these people are making their agenda driven biased edits. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You did canvass, picking an editor whom you probably knew would take your side in the dispute. My edit to Jew Watch is not stalking. Thanks. I guess everyone you get into a dispute with is somehow bias and agenda driven (based on your last comment). I also await your acceptance of the mediation request (though considering this comment, I doubt you will agree to mediate the issue. Yahel Guhan 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I picked an editor who I probably knew would take my side? Are you not only an editor, but also a mind-reader? How can you possibly know why I decided to message that particular user? I have never talked to them before, I have never seen any of their edits - they are an admin, with an interest in islam related articles, that was the only reason. I really am interested why you do not consider your edit to Jew Watch to be stalking - an explanation would be nice. To be honest, I am rather sceptical regarding the mediation request, as far as I am concerned the Jihad Watch issue should not require mediation, it is cited with reliable sources, what is there to mediate? It seems a little like gaming wikipedia to me, mediation to push for a compromise, when no compromise should be required.Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Sennen goroshi's last comment is very honest about his/her intentions. I highly doubt this editor didn't know I had a previous dispute with User:AA (especially since he studied my edits all the way back to July) (as evident by his last comment). He/she also mentions his/her refusal to mediate, meaning he/she is unwilling to compromise on this issue, instead stating that editors who oppose him/her are somehow here to "game wikipedia". Yahel Guhan 19:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I really don't care what you do or do not doubt, you are not here to make assumptions about my intentions and motives, I have explained why I contacted that admin, so either accept my explanation or quit complaining about it. I did not refuse to mediate, I said I was sceptical, please dont try to put words into my mouth. I dont think that editors who oppose me are trying to game wikipedia, I think you are trying to game wikipedia, based on your previous comments, I have had disputes in the past, entered into mediation and compromised on many occasions. btw, who is your friend with the anon IP - he is running remote desktop isnt he? Dont misunderstand me, I dont for a moment think it is your PC sitting there with remote access, however I could probably make a pretty good guess as to who it is. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    anyway, perhaps I have been a little hasty with my edits, and perhaps I have been trying to balance articles, by dragging them all down to the same level, rather than dragging them up to the same level. I am willing to agree with you on the Stormfront and Jew-Watch articles, infact I am willing to agree with you on all articles we have clashed over, apart from Jihad Watch, the Jyllands-Posten cartoons article is debatable, however I will leave that for whoever can be bothered. I am still sceptical about mediation, and I do think you were trying to game wikipedia, however most editors have at some time paid close attention to the rules and used them to their advantage. I dont think for one moment think that the jihad watch article is a closed issue, however perhaps with a little 3rd party help it might get sorted out sooner, rather than later. Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What I find surprising in this incident report is that while Sennen goroshi seems to complain about how people are reading motives into his actions, he seems to have little problems doing so himself.
    The reason I am late-arriving to this complaint is that, until recently, I didn't know who sg was, and didn't much care. Then he made unbidden, impolite remarks on User;Abstract's page and this comment:
    ...just to annoy you, I will personally volunteer to take any block for incivility on Abtract's behalf, especially if that block is related to insulting you in an amusing manner(1).
    Because this occurred in a completely unrelated page, subject and involved editors he hadn't interacted with before, I must presume that his behavioral failings are not specific to any one article (or group of articles) but instead part of his personality. A civility/personal attack block might be in order, if for no other reason that to protect the other editors from this user for a time. With any luck, this user will return to the project properly chastened. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term semi-protection for Keith Howard

    • I realize this may be better suited for WP:RPP, but I got rejected there, and I'm not sure if people fully understand the situation. In a recent episode of the web parody of Yu-Gi-Oh! (entitled Yu-Gi-Oh The Abridged Series), one of the characters mentions that another character's middle name is Steve or he wouldn't have been able to mind control him. Yadda yadda, that's all besides the point. The point is that the character then says "Just look at his Wikipedia article". And predictably, Keith Howard (and to a lesser extent, Ghouls (Yu-Gi-Oh!) has been vandalized daily by geniuses who think that because some Internet show says his middle name is Steve it must be true. (Either that or they think it's funny. Whatever.) I request long-term semi-protection for this article; the vandalism probably will not cease until the next episode is done, and I'm getting tired of reverting every three hours or so. JuJube (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to note that the vandals also seem to want to include references to the character being Canadian, including adding hidden text like "|homeland=Canada" in the article. This reference also seems to relate to the Yu-Gi-Oh web parody.[39], was very recently added, and seems to have slipped through. Blackworm (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The protection was declined yesterday at 7:22; there has been lots of activity since. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an update, the page was semi-protected at 7:46 this morning by Stifle. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, at 11:46 UTC. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock

    Hello, I have the daily sock of user:scibaby removing info. We go through this every night, can someone block User:Wavie Gravy. Thanks, Brusegadi (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, someone took care of it. Brusegadi (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved
     – Blocked by user:Raul654.

    Inappropriate RfA

    I'm not sure if this is a joke or an attempt at disruption (I'm rather skeptical that the story is true), but does anyone recognize the style here? Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, not to cast aspersions, but yeah-- I could venture a guess. Better not, I could be wrong. Does anyone not feel this is disruption? Dlohcierekim 11:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty much disruption per my comments. The user I mentioned who went through RFA earlier today named as Having a wonderful time pretended to be an administrator earlier this morning, but the userbox and comment was later removed. That person, HAWT, also seems to be well acquainted with the workings of monobook's. Rudget. 12:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Albeit good faith or bad, no matter. I've closed it and left a note on the user talk page. NonvocalScream (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous IP user is making edits with my name

    This Special:Contributions/217.87.76.64 anonymous IP user is making edits using my real name and Wikipedia user name. The IP has already been blocked however it looks like the same user has been disruptive from the range of IPs attached to this ISP. This is shown by the logs towards the bottom of this page, all the IP that start with 217.87. Please can someone remove all of the edit history of this user to remove those edits and edit comments that incldue my real life name? A range block of the ISP for anonymous editing might also be needed since this user has been vandalising on the same topics since 4th November last year. Fnagaton 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted two of the four diffs in question; the remaining two are part of pretty large page histories so I'd recommend you request oversight. I'm useless with rangeblocks, so someone else will need to look at that. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 11:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I wasn't aware of the oversight process until now. Fnagaton 11:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just noticed all the offending edits been removed now. Thanks again. Fnagaton 12:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TFD Overdue

    There is no deadline. :) On a serious note, the [irrel TFD] can probably be closed. Thank you in advance, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unacceptable political attack by User:Londo06

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     – User warned by LessHeard vanU

    What kind of edit summary is this [40]? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Poor. Just as poor as removing a line as unsourced in an article that has been in existence for less than 24 hours. I suggest you leave the article alone, to be worked up to a reasonable stub, and possibly Londo06 also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not call it a political attack, as per my initial note on the users talk page, I saw the userbox that labelled him as an anarchist, I would certainly not call it a leap from there. Definitely taken under advisement though.Londo06 13:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is political attack when you liken anarchism with vandalism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At no point did I liken them, I used opened with Anarchists Vandalism which was explained in the detail that was deleted.Londo06 13:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Soiled himself

    Does User:Soiled himself look familiar to anyone? I've got nobody in particular in mind, but this doesn't look like a new user's first edits...and I'm fairly sure that joking about pedo still isn't taken lightly. --Onorem♠Dil 13:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef blocked as troll acount. Yawn, nothing to see here.--Docg 13:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    False dawn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Resolved
     – indef blocked⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is looking increasingly like a vandalism only account. He's received a couple of warnings and his first article Pindick has been speedied. The latest contribution is a posting on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks suggesting that we edit the article to say "JEWS DID WTC". Now, normally I expect Jews to have as much sense of humour as the next person, but I this editor's contributions aren't funny any more. Please review - thankfully the contribs list isn't long. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RBI, looks like a troll to me. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If the account reactivates, level4 warn and then report to AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Jewsdidwtc" is a GNAA meme. They even once managed to troll CNN with it. That's probably what you're seeing here, so it should be handled as normal disruption. *** Crotalus *** 13:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Easy indef blocked for being a GNAA troll, vandal only account. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:In the Stacks again

    Can someone unconnected with the CrimethInc. article please intervene in the edit-war? User:In the Stacks persists in re-adding links against consensus. This has been going on for 6 months.

    Thanks, Skomorokh 13:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone PLEASE weigh in? Murderbike (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Determined trolling of Refdesks

    There have been a number of trolling posts made lately by a user and an IP that are obviously the same person. I have been removing the posts, and the troll has been putting them back. Can he be stopped? --Milkbreath (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Milkbreath is trying to inappropriately eliminate an opposing perspective by labeling me a troll and then harassing me through vandalism by acting on that label. It is Milkbreath's inappropriate labeling and wrongful vandalism which needs to be stopped rather than the opportunity for others to offer comment and to provide references for the research I am doing. Thanks. Multimillionaire (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The user Multimillionaire really does seem to be trolling, with irrelevant flame-starters like "I know White women who have provided compensation in the form of bearing Black children as Barack Obama's grandmother did.". It's lame. --Sean 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs for the claimed trolling. Do not leave it to every reader of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to individually research all the edits by the user you are complaining about. I looked at some of Multimillionaire's edits and saw probable violations of the Ref Desk's rule "Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox" in the form of discussion of white women "compensating" for past oppression of black men by bearing their children. But this is clearly far from a vandalism only account, since many posts were fine such as [41]. . A caution against inflammatory soapboxing might be in order, if there are additional such posts. Edison (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Controversial topics with very loaded questions recently started by Multimilionier or someone in the ip range 71.100.*.*
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=201045940&oldid=201045659
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=200832624&oldid=200831282
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=prev&oldid=200000256
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=200421664&oldid=200415415
    These are usually followed by a number of minor edits fixing style punctuation, etc.
    Reinstatement of deleted question : (Edit tagged as "minor")
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=200996573&oldid=200994795
    Recreation of a deleted question : (Notice how the political catch-phrase he's trying to push has been moved to the title, probably in the hopes that only the question text would be deleted.)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=201171693&oldid=201171673
    I'm pretty sure that this is not all of them. They are a pain to locate with all the traffic the ref desks get and his dynamic IP.
    Note that he appears to fully acknowledge that (some or all) of the 71.100.*.* posts are him, as he responds to criticism as though he were the original poster. APL (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    :::FWIW, along with the IPs, User:Millionaire now redirects to User:Pedist There was a name change in October, 2006, but not many edits, if any, since then, at User:Pedist. User came back to WP as User:Millionaire several days ago, and now has moved Millionaire's User and Talk pages to User:Pedist. It doesn't appear that Millionaire's conrtibutions have been moved however, as I can't find any of the awkward Ref Desk questions in User:Pedist's contributions. Is this the norm? ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC) OOOPs~ Apologies to User:Millionaire and User:Pedist, and thanks to User:FiggyBee. It's very reassuring to know that I can count on at least one Wikipedian who can read. Once again, apologies for the disruption. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bielle, the user at issue is User:Multimillionaire, not User:Millionaire, who appears to be completely unrelated. FiggyBee (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See also his bizarre answers in this question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Changing_fortunes_of_the_Nazi_Party APL (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bonny Eberndu (talk · contribs · count) - sock

    Resolved
     – The user has been blocked as a sock puppet of Pope Benjamin Lister (1 == 2)Until 15:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I just reverted the user. Definite sock. Not sure who. Trying to nominate iar for deletion. Requested speedy for the AfD page also. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    They have nominated for MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed it out. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Pope Benjamin Lister (talk · contribs). Ryan Postlethwaite 15:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a request for unblock on its talk page. Says its the wrong guy, but it shouldn't matter. It was clearly an attack account. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its been check user confirmed. I've protected his talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Determined registered user vandalism

    I don't know if anyone wants to do anything about this, but there was a flurry of RfA vandalism from a single user. Accounts:

    If you think this report is just feeding the troll, feel free to delete it. I thought perhaps someone could run some checkusers and get an IP range, or at least indef block the accounts that aren't already. And what just happened to Wiki for fifteen minutes there? Tan | 39 15:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    They are all part of some wiki-mafia, see my talk page history :) They all belong to one user and they've been at it for a while. They appear to be stemming from here, and not to mention all these. The IP seems to change every day aswell, so each account is from a different range, I think. Rudget. 15:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ecx2)Also up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#New_vandals. See also: User:SQL/RfASocks. SQLQuery me! 15:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say best course of action, as I see it, is a combination of WP:RBI, and WP:DNFT. The funny thing about announcing that you are in a mafia, is that anyone that is really in a mafia would never annouce it. Prime example of violating WP:TINC, and a prime example of a really bored individual. Revert, block, ignore. They'll go away. (they all do eventually) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Littleteddy (talk · contribs), I'm afraid. Rangeblock for 24 hours anon-only ACB, but its a big range. Thatcher 15:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently there's an other range to block. Zubey1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). -- lucasbfr talk 09:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure you want that many people (1-2 million) caught up in the rangeblock? C4455471 (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peck123

    Resolved

    This little vandal has messed up my user page and user talk through redirects that I don't know how to fix. All of my history for both pages are gone, and once again, I don't know how to fix it. I reverted some vandalism he did to User:El C's page, then he took revenge on me. Can someone revert all the changes to my user and user talk pages, along with restoring the history? And anyone who can tell me how to do it (or if it requires an admin), I'd appreciate learning how to do it. Thanks for the help.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind. An admin blocked Peck123 and fixed my pages, and now I know how to do it! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility by User:L.djinevski

    Resolved
     – no incivility⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:L.djinevski let an unsigned impolite and uncivilized comment here... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you get the correct comment? The statement there looks civil to me. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You’ve got to be kidding, right? In case you didn't notice, that's the comment: "The people of the former turkish republic of greece al also not descendant from the antient Macedonians.". Let's wait and see the opinion of others. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got to be kidding, right? Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course the comment is insulting but most important the user moves around reverting almost everything. He should be warned of how to participate and behave. Seleukosa (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thats racist.Megistias (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There's nothing racist or incivil about that comment. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Orangemike

    Admin User:Orangemike fully-protected all Metro Manila FM stations citing WP:OWN violations, despite no one "owning" or claiming to "own" articles. He moved all Metro Manila FM stations (see DWRT-FM) to their four-letter codes instead of the brand name, citing Wikipedia:NAME#Broadcasting.

    I have two problems with this:

    1. It is absolutely inappropriate to protect articles without any benefit of discussion. As much as I understand protection policy, it is not like the Iraq War where the article is preemptively.
    2. It is absolutely inappropriate to move articles without any benefit of discussion. Orangemike may cite Wikipedia:NAME#Broadcasting but I can cite a rule that'll override it: WP:NAME: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I can certify that no one in Metro Manila calls an FM station by their callsigns but by their brand names. See a prior discussion on this issue.

    Therefore, I request that an admin unprotect all of these station articles. Reversion will be done later if there's consensus either to move it back, or the moves were unilateral. --Howard the Duck 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An admin should unprotect all of these station articles quickly. Pinoybandwagon (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I went by the clear wording of the appropriate portion of WP:NAME, which says nothing about any exception for Philippine stations. (I believe the WP:NAME system makes much more sense. At least one of these stations has changed its slogan/brand/motto three times within the past two years, and I think it would be silly to keep creating a new article every time they rebrand themselves!) I explained what I was doing, on the talk page of the first couple of articles involved, and on the talk page of the editor User:Pinoybandwagon. I brought up the issue of WP:OWN because an editor had shown editorship tendencies; I believe he is either a current or former employee of one of the networks there. I also brought the issue here to WP:AN, and nobody criticized my actions! Instead of discussing the matter, Pinoybandwagon just reverted without edit summary, and later left a nasty note on my talk page ordering me not to interfere with his "FINAL" solution to the issue. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but why protect all of them? You could've just blocked/asked another admin to block him/her for disruption.
    Also, I'm not asking for an exception; I'm saying once a child rule/guideline is in conflict with his parent rule/guideline, the parent rule/guideline should prevail, and in this case, the callsigns are not "greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". I'd accept that for dead stations but not for current ones.
    As for rebranding, they always go to the original articles, maybe except for when a station is sold to a new owner and the new owner reformats it. Like for example, when 99.5 RT (just look at the history, I'm betting it's redirected somewhere) was bought, it still stayed as RT until it was reformatted a year ago to Hit FM. Then this Sunday, Hit FM became Campus FM. I'd argue that RT should have a separate article but both Campus and Hit should remain in one article since they had one owner. In fact, that's what I did until the new user sprang up, and I would've dealt it on some other time. --Howard the Duck 16:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, normally, the specific overrides the general, so that if a child rule/guideline is in apparent conflict with the parent guideline, then the child guideline remains in effect. But that's neither here nor there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that the general rule prevails over the specific rule? Since more than likely, the general rule has a green check mark while the specific rule has the blue one, and in Wikipedia, green check mark > blue check mark. --Howard the Duck 03:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reasons whythe Radio Station Info should be put in its name (Ex: 95.9 Big FM info under the name 95.9 Big FM):

    1. The real name of the Radio Station is more understanding than the Radio Station callsign.
    2. People new or old to wikipedia will realize the real title of the Radio Station.
    3. In the templates area (such as Template:Metro Manila Radio), the Radio Station callsign and the Radio Station frequency highlighted in black show the Radio Station Name (Ex: the callsign DWBG and the frequency 95.9 shows 95.9 Big FM).

    Pinoybandwagon (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is what I've been advocating; only a very few people know a callsign of an FM station unless it is a part of the brandname. I have no qualms on dead FM and AM stations since they're known by their callsigns but on-air FM stations are rarely called by their callsigns alone. At least on the introductory line the brand name should be named first, that's why I'm advocating for the removal of full protection. --Howard the Duck 03:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin should unprotect all of these station articles by March 27. Pinoybandwagon (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to recall we had the same problem in Australia a month or two ago when User:New World Man moved a heap of articles to their callsigns and one of our admins fixed them back. WP:NC#Broadcasting says: "In places with a mix of call signs and station names ... the station name should normally be used, except when the call sign is well-known". I am inclined to unprotect but would prefer to see more sources. If those are presented to demonstrate local use of the names rather than the callsigns, I'll do it this evening - there does seem to have been an abuse of the protection policy. Orderinchaos 07:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Despute on the Krishna article about Crowley/Thelema section

    Dear Admins, Can we please have a third party on the issue of keeping the Crowley/Thelema section in the Krishna article. The majority of the editors feel that it is unappropriate and should be removed. I have been threatened by one of the opposing editor with barring me from editing that page...Please help.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you may be looking for WP:3O or WP:MEDCAB. Good luck! --jonny-mt 16:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Fitz Mackins showing ownership of articles

    I hope this is an appropriate place to post this - I haven't listed this in WP:AIV because I'm not sure that this is vandalism per se, but Fitz Mackins's edits are really problematic. He has assumed ownership of a few articles, notably Edwin Wijeyeratne‎ and Nissanka Wijeyeratne‎ (which he initially created), and is reverting every change to them and othr articles by any other editor. This includes the simple addition of article improvement tags which the articles could really use: here, here, and here, just to pick three from Edwin Wijeyeratne‎. There are many more examples at Nissanka Wijeyeratne‎, at Radala, at Govigama, at Diyawadana Nilame and many others. None of these edits are ever explained even in an edit summary, and attempts to engage him in discussion on his talk page haven't been effective - he will not engage in any discussion. Note on his talk page that he has been warned for ownership, edit warring, and general vandalism, but has continued the behaviour. Other editors have also expressed similar frustrations at the article talk pages. At what point do we stop assuming good faith and start calling this ownership behaviour vandalism? Dawn bard (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am investigating his edits of today. He has been amply warned. If I see edit warring going on today, I will block this user.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He/she hasn't appeared to have made any edits since earlier today. Well, I will watch this user over the next few days. Report any further incidents here. In the meantime, put forth every effort to be peaceable and cooperative with this user. Among those bringing the complaints, I have seen some edit warring as well. Blocking someone from Wikipedia, though sometimes necessary, is a sad event. In the interim that he is not editing, begin to make some constructive and non-controversial edits - preferably beyond just article tagging. I would like to see this resolved peacefully, but if the complete lack of cooperation continues then we'll have to block.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring and racism

    See above. User:Svetovid has been blocked 2 times for edit warring on Hedvig Malina page. Guess, what he's doing since his last block? Editwarring on the Hedvig Malina page :) now carefully avoiding to break 3RR. Intrestingly an IP came to help him :) Svetovid is forcing an obviously biased version instead of the compromised (NPOV) version. Action needed, thanks. --87.97.109.54 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Complete rudeness from User:Abtract

    Resolved
     – Warnings have been issued, apologies made and feedback provided, here and elsewhere.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm getting very upset from seeing improper comments of this editor, such as here, here, and here, and can not tell if they are plain lack of civility or harassment, but are looking more like personal attacks. Can an admin. step in and tell the user to stop? I have issued an {{npa3}} but I feel this may not have helped. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Now (s)he appears to be testing other contributors. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively, it could be seen that you are baiting this user, now aided by others, and you might like to consider disengaging. Then, after a period for everybody to be a bit cooler, consider dispute resolution rather than telling tales here. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I only plan to seek WP:DISPUTE if his/her behaviour doesn't change. Just would like for someone of higher authority to immediately let Abtract knowing that treating others by assuming good faith is crucial. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't anybody of higher authority (save for Jimbo, perhaps) here. Administrators are not magistrates and are not going to involve themselves in petty disputes... unless you're happy for your own conduct to be equally examined? As I say, it could easily be seen that you are baiting the user you are telling tales on. And that's not good either. And the problem would go away to some degree if you left them alone. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What am I baiting them into? I am not intentionally bothering anyone. Example, as you can see here, the editor chose to make a nasty remark, which I didn't trigger in any way, shape or form. This type of irritating behaviour is what pisses me off. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    <-Well, first you swept in and templated a regular. When they got annoyed, your response was to template them again. Then, having pushed someone already annoyed pretty far, you came here and told tales. So I repeat: disengage. Step back. Walk away. Give it up. Now, please. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies gentlefolk and User:Sesshomaru. Thank you for your comments and, be assured, such unsubtle insults will not recur. Abtract (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Admission of block evasion, but not sure which IP was blocked

    The IP user 74.85.13.62 has been edit warring and reverting against consensus over genre classifications, particularly the Foo Fighters. Here this user makes the pretty plain assertion that he is evading IP blocks to keep this behavior going. The problem is, I have no idea which specific IP address was the one that was banned, so no way right now to tie them all together. Is there an easier way to ferret this info out? This person is also 131.125.114.132, as they admit to editing "between two different locations". 38.99.101.131 also edits in the exact same manner, but there hasn't been a conclusive admission yet from that one.

    Also add in here some general incivility, i.e. [42] and [43].

    Tarc (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That final diff is direct, but not uncivil. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Foo Fighters article is authorized by bigots..." is civil? Tarc (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2008 unrest in Tibet

    I don't have time to dig into it now, but there's a raging edit war in the above article between two users. Could someone check it out and warn/block/protect as necessary/justified? Nesodak (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Even without looking at the substance of the war, the sheer number of [undid edit by...] [undid edit by...] [undid edit by...] [undid edit by...] in the page history over the past couple of hours was enough for me to protect The Wrong VersionTM for a while. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alsharptonsbuddy on a vandal tear

    On (what else) the Al Sharpton article. Making the same text replacement other redlinked names have made eg, Pioneervalleywoman, 'cept this guy is more prolific. Seven in a row at last count for today. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bagged and tagged, 24 hour block at this point, and encouraged the editor to discuss instead of blind revert. If it starts again, drop a note in AIV. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, a look at the article history suggests a return vandal, and probably socks. More watchers on the article would be a good thing at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    that username seems problematic. Corvus cornixtalk 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, the name should get an indef. As fo the article, a new account has started editing there as well. I left what I hoep was a blunt and clear message about using talk pages, but I doubt much will come of it. ThuranX (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:David Shankbone/72.76

    David's stalker is still going at it. He's moved to my user and talk page yesterday (both now semi-protected) and is leaving messages like this on the LGBT project talk page. Note the implied threat of physical violence, much like this towards Michael Lucas and this towards David. Is there a way a block can be placed on the range this guy is using or is it too broad of an area? This has gone way past stalking and harassment on this site and the police have been contacted by David. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesus, that's disturbing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added so many frickin IP's to that list. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please protect Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies ASAP. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, but please check me to make sure I did it properly. I set the protection for 10 days. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The guy's editing from Newark, New Jersey. Time for an abuse report at the very least ... I'll see about doing an anon-only range block. Blueboy96 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Blueboy, wow that is down-right frightening. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably for David and Michael — but have they called the police? I probably would. --Haemo (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    David has and I think Michael has as well. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    <-Will someone in the US please contact Mike Godwin, preferably by phone? The level of detail is Not Good. If a CheckUser is about, can they gather the appropriate detail on this for him? This has just stepped beyond stalking and into the level of real-world threat. If we can act over every bloody anonymous suicide "threat" and use of the word "bomb" on a school talk page, we can certainly act immediately over this, at a Foundation level. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Redvers, I had an Edit Conflict, and was going to ask the same thing. This is way beyond a troll looking to get a laugh out of making people clean up their mis-deeds, this is terroristic threats and needs to be handled by the proper authorities. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He started harassing me because I've been adding the IP's to the list and placing sock templates on the accounts. The messages he left me were just trying to play with my head, but if there's even a hint of a physical threat I have no qualms with contacting the Washington, D.C. Police Department (where I live) or the Newark Police Department. I'm not going to put up with that and David certainly has not done anything to deserve this kind of psychotic harassment. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been following this for a while, trying to help where I can. I agree with the above: real action is called for in this case. WP/the foundation needs to do whatever it can to protect its editors from this kind of abhorrent behavior. R. Baley (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ranges are 72.76.0.0/17, 71.127.224.0/20, and 72.68.112.0/20. These are dynamic Verizon addresses. Blocking them would cause some, but not an immense amount of, collateral damage. Black Kite 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We can take the hit, in the circumstances. Anybody good at range blocks want to apply one to those ranges (anon only? ACB?) for a week or two? Just to give us some space. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another one. He's quick with the IP's. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see many productive anon edits on 72.68.112.0/20, so I've blocked it for 72 hours. Mr.Z-man 21:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More of the same started at User talk:Moni3, so I went ahead and semi-protected for 5 days. Aleta Sing 21:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All ranges blocked for two weeks, anon-only. Hopefully this will stem the tide. Blueboy96 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Blueboy. Much appreciated. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Blueboy. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem ... I noticed a few admins had hardblocked the ranges, but there's no reason to lock out constructive editors under the circumstances--especially considering that it's coming from the biggest city in New Jersey. Blueboy96 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is definitely a case for Mike Godwin. Newark to the address referenced would take about 45 minutes by NJT, far less than the time needed for most meds to really kick in, or a temper flareup to cool down. Get Mike on it, let him and the cops work together to prosecute the guy for assault (stating that a bullet hole will look nice in his head, then 'confirming' the address constitutes assault by Newark standards) and let him find out about 'fire island loving' in prison. ThuranX (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we know if anyone notified Godwin? Aleta Sing 01:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Foundation is aware of the situation. I've exchanged emails with Cary about it. - Philippe | Talk 02:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks, Philippe! Aleta Sing 02:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, we've used huge range blocks in the past to deal with this individual. It seemed to keep him at bay for a day or two. See this one, for reference: [44].--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    hahaha. Applause for the sarcasm. ThuranX (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we get those edits oversighted ASAP? Several of them contain real addresses and contact info. Even if the contact info is not accurate, someone could use it to show up at said addresses and... (shudder to think). Seriously, we need those edits removed from the history ASAP. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad; I actually mailed Lar for oversight on the diff on WJBscribe's talk page (the one with the address) about an hour ago but had to step away from the computer shortly after so I didn't get a chance to post here. Commons only has two oversight users; should we take it to a Steward instead? --jonny-mt 05:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In Re: CAT:CSD

    I'm seeing several User talk pages appearing as tagged for Speedy Deletion when they are not. The fault appears to be in the {{sandbox}} template, where a user was experimenting with a Speedy Deletion tag. Not calling anyone out, as that's what a sandbox is for - but, if you happen to look into a candidate for speedy deletion that doesn't appear to be tagged, be aware that it might not be tagged at all. The cache will clear shortly, but just an FYI. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimblack's page moves

    Resolved

    Can someone undo this guy's recent page moves? He's made a mess of things and I couldn't quite fix it by just moving stuff back. Thanks.--Atlan (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, you're not kidding! Beach drifter (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now fixed and nonsense redirects deleted. Hut 8.5 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice, thanks.--Atlan (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – IP blocked for one year by User:Toddst1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can an admin please have a look at this diff. It seems like the IP is making a legal threat to Sunderland06, which is of course against WP:LEGAL. As IP's can't be blocked indefintely, I suggest this IP is blocked for a year (unless it's an actual user hiding under his IP, which is likely). D.M.N. (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He making a valiant effort into rendering himself a non-issue. This problem will cease to be one in a few minutes. HalfShadow (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about copying/moving page histories (my bad)

    Hi all, technical question for you (sorry if this isn't the right place, but I think I need an admin to sort it out). A while back, when I was still (even more) inexperienced and all, I found that someone had changed information in the article Adam Russell from its current form of a redirect to Story of the Year, to information on a baseball player. Not wanting to just cut-and-paste move that information (especially assuming that those editors interested in the baseball player would be looking for it again), I did a page move to Adam W. Russell (which has since been moved to Adam Russell (baseball)). Anyway, long story short - I didn't realize that ALL of the page history went with the move. Since there used to be a fair amount of information on the original Adam Russell before his page was changed to a redirect to the band he's in, I was wondering if there's any way to copy the page history (either all, or up to and including November 13, 2007) (or split it) back to Adam Russell from Adam Russell (baseball). If not, okay, but I just wanted to check. (I admit to a little personal interest in the case, as I went to high school with the first guy.) (My current "remedy" was to leave a note on the Talk page for the original Adam Russell mentioning where the history was, but...) Thanks, --Umrguy42 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User adverting meat-puppet service

    see here I will consider such submissions, reviewing them for appropriateness according to my own standards., Please do not revert additions to this page by any user or IP editor, regardless of block or parole status. --87.115.8.224 (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the linked page and the talk page of the person in question, you, or someone with a similar IP as you, are currently engaged in a dispute of some sort with this person. Jtrainor (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) That would be User:Fredrick day. Indeed. If anyone sees that I have done anything improper with that page, or with content placed upon it, please advise me so that I can review my actions. For starters, though, the bad-hand IP user starting this notice did the same thing with a minor transgression of User:Larry E. Jordan, waving an appearance of a Bad Deed, it really Looked Bad, (Article about Obscene Easter Bunny Hotline! Think of the Children! Wikipedia Reputation Will Be Ruined!) essentially starting a riot, the effects of which are still reverberating as more administrators are drawn in to deal with the disruption. Normally, if an editor does something improper, response begins with warning, and in most cases good-faith editors discuss it and work out consensus, without calling 911, which is what AN/I properly is. So when something starts here that was not preceded by a warning or discussion and which is not an emergency, very good chance the initiator is trolling for some personally desired response. This particular one has caught some fish here before, so he returns to the same spot. Quite understandable.
    Good catch, Jtrainor. Even without a program, such as Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, you recognized the spider. Squish. --Abd (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, a blocked editor, on a page accessible to him, makes a suggestion and an administrator rushes to implement it. What that page invited is what is open to any editor through any page that can be edited by an IP editor or new account. It would only be meat-puppetry or proxying if I improperly act on it. I can already do that with edits, visible in history, from various blocked socks, and I can certainly receive such content by email, and use it appropriately. Well, I could go to DRV, but, frankly, it's not worth the effort, and I'm sure Black Kite has better things to do as well. I'd suggest, though, that he just allowed himself to be used, through his knee-jerk response, as a meat puppet for a blocked user. Food for thought. If the page was improper, it's gone. And if it was not, well, I could recreate it any time, depending on stuff that has not happened yet as far as I know. So, moot, even if it were needed, which it is not. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bmjmureithi (talk · contribs) left a legal threat (and also unexplained accusations of racism) here on my user page. Likely relates to this AfD. That's two legal threats against me in less than a month. I must be doing something wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    They actually repeated themselves on Delicious carbuncle's talk page and on the AfD. They were warned by User:Stephan Schulz, but so far they've made no move to retract the comments. --jonny-mt 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops; looks like I spoke too soon. --jonny-mt 00:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe not. The comments have not been removed or retracted on my talk page, and now the editor is deleting more comments at the AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarifying something with my Brit friends...

    A "pork scratching" is the UK version of "pork rind", yes? Crunchy little greasy snacky-thing, horribly bad for you? I ask because I want to make sure that saying someone has "the same (body-fat) percentage as a pork scratching"[45] is, in fact, the gross BLP-vio I suspect it is. Gladys J Cortez 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct (and indeed pork scratching redirects to pork rind). FiggyBee (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmmmm .... pork scratchings. But ... Rik Waller is a very large chap, so if his body fat ratio was actually 60%, the comparison would be technically valid (though completely unnecessary, unkind and deletable on the spot).Black Kite 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I thought. (The percentage was unsourced, incidentally; I hung a fact tag on that, but deleted the pork-scratching.) Thanks for the info!Gladys J Cortez 00:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It might be a BLP vio - but its a great insult! ViridaeTalk 08:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Refactoring and edit-warring by User:JHunterJ

    In the HP (disambiguation) page, user (and admin) JHunterj has been repeatedly altering (1, 2 3) the section titles of the recent archive to titles that were not being used prior to the archival, to titles that reflect JHunterj's personal, original feelings on the subject.
    Furthermore, JHunterj has been altering the titles of these sections in the Discussion page's summary links (3, 4 5) to that archive, to reflect his/her personal point of view.
    Repeated requests (6) for explanation as to why JHunterj was making these inappropriate changes to the archive went unanswered, except to say that he was making corrections to alterations made to his statements - which never, ever occurred during the archival or linking process. When finally, the user was warned that further actions (placing them beyond the threshold of a 3RR violation) would prompt action, user JHunterj made the same edits again and curtly stated that I should take further action as necessary, with the edit summary of "good luck".
    I feel uncomfortable posting a complaint about any admin's behavior, as I am concerned about reprisals from his fellow admins, but no one gets to refactor existing section headers after they have been archived, personal feelings or not, possessing The Mop or not. Clearly, the admin isn't anting/needing to listen to me; perhaps some of his colleagues may have more of an impact. I am not sure de-sysopping is called for here, but an admin needs to follow the rules even more closely than the regular editors, as they set the example. If this admin chooses not to, then perhaps the yoke of adminship is too heavy to bear. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It also bears pointing out that JHunterj has (as of this filing) violated 3RR in both archive 2 of the HP dab page (1, 2, 3) and the discussion page (4, 5).
    As 3RR covers cumulative edits of a disruptive nature within the same article, I think the violation is somewhat clear. I don't mind filing the 3RR, but it might be easier to address it here, as the violations are part of the same problem. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mic of orion

    Mic of orion has uploaded several images with a dubious permission. For example Image:M95 interior shot.jpg. There is only a permission to use on wiki documented. In other cases he has the permission to use the images for educational purpose. That´s not free enough. Images must be free for every purpose if we want them to use here. Because of that I tagged the images, but the uploader - Mic of orion - simply removes the tags or even distortes the description pages of the images (e. g. [46]). And he annoys me with bad words on my discussion page ([47]).

    Furthermore this IP has vandalized my user page ([48]) and later vandalized some of these description pages in the same way as Mic of orion. So I believe the IP and Mic are the same person.

    I hope, there is anyone who could help me. It´s not about me but about the images whose upload violates our policies. Mic of orion menaced to upload these images again if they would be deleted (he said "and if you delete the images I'll just upload them again" [49]). For now it would be already enough if Mic of orion would not edit the description pages until the case is clarified. Chaddy (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, User:east718 deleted the images. So that's the end of it. Chaddy (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with user Kaji13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I noticed that this user seemed to be engaging in problematic behavior (mainly civility issues), so I tried to help him/her out [50] (this diff includes links to said problems), but he replied with [51]. Could someone analyze this. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 03:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As the user had made nothing but vandal edits, I reported him to AIV and the user has been blocked indef. Wildthing61476 (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From Wikipedia:Help desk#Copyvio or not?, it seems Thismightbezach (talk · contribs) has added a number of plot summaries to Wikipedia (such as Pickup on South Street, Garden of Evil, Run for the Sun, and Road House (1948 film)) that are currently copyrighted by Turner Classic Movies (i.e. [52]). However, these plot summaries were added to Wikipedia just over a year ago, and TCM's website claims copyright from 2008, so maybe they're the ones violating it? I tried looking through this user's contribs to see if this pattern extended anywhere else, but it's hard to pick out good edits to check given his complete lack of edit summary usage. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cosmetic surgery industry and Plastic and Reconstructive surgery are not the same thing

    "Cosmetic surgery" and the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery" are not the same thing. They should be separate articles. I have tried to protect the article (Cosmetic surgery), however someone has been consistently redirecting the article on "cosmetic surgery" to a different article about a related but entirely separate topic (ie. the specialty of Plastic and reconstructive surgery).

    Here are some examples of the current representative bodies for "cosmetic surgery":

    http://www.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org/fellowship_route.php training requirements for US board certification in cosmetic surgery]

    Even without fellowship training in cosmetics, many specialties teach cosmetics as part of their standard residency training program (example Otolaryngology and Maxillofacial surgery Board certification exams have a substantial component devoted to facial cosmetic surgery approx: 15-30%)

    There are many other medical/surgical specialties that utilise cosmetic surgical techniques and procedures and are equally licensed to provide such procedures. The surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery" is not the only provider of these services. Redirecting the entire article to the Plastic surgery article suggests a certain POV that only Plastic surgeons can provide cosmetic procedures to the public and this is not true. I do agree the article needs to be cleaned up, however deleting it completly and/or redirecting I don't feel are the right thing to do. Can someone please help with this matter. Thank you. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Your contributions to cosmetic surgery were reverted and the article redirected because you seemed to be creating an advertisement for it, which is certainly not a neutral point of view. But if you dispute how the articles are set up, you have discuss it at Talk:Plastic surgery and follow dispute resolution if that doesn't work out. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review my block

    Please review my block of 71.202.161.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He was repeatedly labeling Polish mathematicians as Ukrainians, put anti-Polish rants in the articles, etc. He was repeatedly asked not to do it by many users (me included). The reason I am asking the reivew of the block is that while I have no interest in the articles I have been marginally involved in the editing of Stefan Banach and Mark Kac‎ - I was trying to accommodate grievances of the anonim into the articles and undid the disruptive edits a few time. If found that my block is baseless - please unblock the IP Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse Good block. There is too much edit warring and POV pushing here to keep around. If they return to the same behavior, I would block longer... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Twinkle Abuse by User:Diligent Terrier

    Diligent Terrier (talk · contribs) appears to be misusing the script. Ive left several messages on his talk page, which he somewhat avoided, and eventually archived, i was not satisfied with his response, so ive brought the issue here. My issues are as follows;

    • According to WP:TWINKLE, the script is to be used to assist them [wikipedia users] in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism, I fail to see how this, this, or this falls into maintenance or vandalism. He was reverting a long-standing administrator, without prior discussion. The edit is not any form of maintenance. For further clarification of the revert by Orderinchaos, see here and here.
    • He also reverted an IP (User:76.98.204.203) for his edit to the Goldfish article (diff), in his edit summary, he claimed the edit was Blaitant vandalism. It was not vandalism, the edit certainly didnt add anything to the article, but it was a good faith edit, trying to add content to the article. After his revert, he placed not one, but two user-warning templates on their talk page (see here), the IP has only ever made [one edit to wikipedia.
    • Hes moved on to reverting a user who removed a warning by another user and added content to his user talk page (see here). According to WP:TALK, this user is free to delete comments from his talk page. After reverting this user, he slapped a user warning template for his edit (see here). It may be worth noting that after his warning on his talk page, the good-faith IP never returned.

    Diligent Terrier is hardly a new editor, having been on wikipedia since October 2006, but seriously editing Since July 2007. see here for earliest contributions. Thanks. Twenty Years 05:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User Triippe

    User:Triippe seems to have done something a little strange. He/she has moved their talk page to another talk page at User:Tripaye. This follows the user blanking a page that was up for AfD and some other strange edits (including altering other users' comments at the AfD to change their opinions). I just wanted to post this here to get some opinions about what this user might be doing with the new account and talk page and if someone should reach out and make contact about the user's intentions.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thoughts

    User_talk:Ubibok3 must be a sock?--Hu12 (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, see #Determined_registered_user_vandalism above. -- lucasbfr talk 09:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=201289307"