Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Speedy deleting where there is no template - forbidden?

Here [1] I've been accused of G4 speedying an article after the template was removed (the article's recreator thinks I must have seen a non-existent edit conflict). That's not what happened, when I initiated the delete it had the tag, which was removed at virtually the same time. But isn't that irrelevant? Where does it say that an article must be tagged for it to be deleted if it meets the criteria for speedy delete? I know that I have a few times tagged articles when I wasn't convinced, and I don't recall having speedied any untagged articles, but if I came across a page that was a blatant attack page, clear gibberish (an oxymoron I guess, sorry), am I really supposed to tag it and let it stay until another Admin finds it? That's not my understanding of the guidelines. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I speedy delete untagged pages all the time. It makes no sense to tag a page that says something like "X is a sad loser" when you can instantly delete it. Of course, when there is some doubt, tagging is better. Fram (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked into this when I first became and admin, and there's no requirement to first tag articles which meet the speedy deletion criteria. I also regularly speedy delete articles without tagging them - my understanding is that's what the speedy deletion criteria are for. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Tagging is for instances where you can't delete or you want a second pair of eyes. Pages meeting a speedy criterion can be deleted at any time. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Speedy deletion: Administrators can delete such pages on sight, even if contested as below. Ruslik (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Tags are for non-admins to request admin action. (or for admins to request a second pair of eyes, like ruslik says) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's always been my understanding, but I was starting to think maybe I'd misunderstood it. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I never tag- I either delete outright, or, if I'm not sure, I go for AfD/prodding. J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I almost always tag, and almost never delete on sight. (what I will do is change an existing tag to a more appropriate reason, & then delete.) I would like to think I'm perfect, of course, but I've learned otherwise. If I'm 95% right that's not good enough, at least by my standards of dealing with newcomers. I'd in fact urge that single-handed deletes for most reasons be flatly forbidden. That people are defending this practice here gives reason to renew that proposal, and I shall. DGG (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more deletionist than DGG, but like him I often tag rather than going for a straight immediate deletion, to get a second set of eyes. The most glaring exceptions are the shamelessly spammy, and the obvious vandalism or attack page. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

and I must admit in turn that when i see such garbage that I get really impatient, i have been known to just go ahead. OM and I, in fact, seem to have have acquired the habit of reviewing each other. DGG (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the link you will see that it is a hotly contested AfD. Unomi (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The only ones I delete on sight are obvious attack pages ("Joe is a loser and ugly") or excruciatingly blatant A7's ("Jenna is a pretty girl at our school and I hope she likes me"). The rest can always benefit from a second pair of eyes, if only because when an editor comes back to complain we can say it wasn't a unilateral decision.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is about my approach. If it's obvious garbage, I nuke it; if it's something where I'm hesitant, I'll always tag it and get someone else to look at it that way. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User: Ciaran UK

Resolved

 – Indef blocked, Tiptoety ^talk 21:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping an admin could take a look at the edit history for Ciaran UK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Some of this user's recent edits look... suspicious. Stuff like placing {{indef}} tags. They're also placing needless redirects on user pages. I've suspected they're a vandal in disguise since they contacted me out of the blue. If someone could advise, it would be much appreciated.Monkey Bounce (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Some of those tags seem to be accurate. Not sure what is up w/ the redirects or other edits, but the most recent indef taggins have been placed on accounts which were indefinitely blocked. Protonk (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, just engage w/ them on their talk page. See what's up and try to figure out why they are doing it. Tagging indeffed accounts strikes me as totally unnecessary, but if he gets his kicks out of it, I guess it doesn't hurt anyone. Protonk (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I left a message yesterday. No response. Just to clarify, I was under the impression that things like redirects on user pages were considered impolite. What's your take on it? Monkey Bounce (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I share the suspicions of User:Monkey Bounce. I've notified Ciaran UK of this discussion. His account was created 27 March, and he has been adopted by Dylan620. His edits look eccentric, because he is messing around with things that don't need any improvement, and they suggest a lot of wiki experience. Why would a person who knows all about wiki templates ask for adoption on his first edit? Mocking the system, perhaps. This edit makes you wonder if a checkuser should find out whether he is Grawp. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope I don't get blocked. Ciaran UK ^{rush jump} 06:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that answer, together with yet another request for rollback rights makes up my mind for me. A checkuser might be very educational at this point.Monkey Bounce (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This editor's behavior definitely isn't that of a genuinely new editor. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dylan620 (Ciaran's adopter) here. I suspected him of being a sock at first (not Grawp, sorry), but decided to assume good faith and adopt him. However, now that the community's brought it up, I'll explain why I thought he was a sock, and why I suspect that the sockpuppeteer is banned user Fila3466757 (talk · contribs).

• Except for Telephonedennis (talk · contribs), Fila's socks from 2009 have attractive, colorful signatures that contain one link each to the account's user page, talk page, and contribution log. (Filper01, Okay15, Ciaran1534 (note the similarity to "Ciaran UK"), 45ODY) Almost all of these accounts used their signatures within their first few edits. This was the same for Ciaran UK.
• Ed's evidence above.

Dylan620 :  Chat  18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Dylan620's comment, I've added Ciaran UK's name at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fila3466757 and requested a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Per the above SPI case, I have indef blocked Ciaran UK (talk · contribs). Tiptoety ^talk 21:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Ludvikus requesting an unblock

Resolved

 – No consensus to reduce block length

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

The above user, who has served 11 months of a 2-year sentance, is requesting time off for good behavior. I have no preference in the matter, or any knowledge of the case, but am starting a discussion here to see if there is support at this time for an unblock. I will be contacting the blocking admin as well for his input. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I am pretty new here but have been doing a lot of reading on policy and block issues. I think that Ludvikus is sincere in his desire to be unblocked and return to editing. It seems to me that in return for getting "early release" he would have to be adopted or undergo some sort of mentoring. I think that could work pretty well and allow for an enthusiastic editor to return! Basket of Puppies 05:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No freaking way. For the reasons behind the present block, please see:

• User:FT2/Evidence pages/Philosophy
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive1#Community action review on Ludvikus
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive418#User:Ludvikus
• and several other entries in this list: [2]

There is a solid consensus that the problems with this user are a deep-grained personality issue. "Sincere in his desire to be unblocked" is certainly true, but if a person has a deep-seated inability to work constructively with others, that's simply not enough. I see no evidence that this user has changed their attittude towards cooperation, and frankly, I can't even imagine how he could do that even if he wanted to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How about asking the user to work on an article in their own userspace and see if they can produce something that complies with policy? Their acceptable work could then be copied into mainspace and perhaps editing restrictions could be eased, keeping a topic ban from the area where they got into trouble originally. People do sometimes change. Jehochman ^Talk 06:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposing content edits is something that he seems to have been doing in his user space all the time. No problem with that. But the problem always was about interacting with other editors in disputes. There's no way you can "test" that ability without letting him loose on mainspace again, and as far as I am concerned I'm not going to risk the aggravation to fellow editors that such a test run would most likely cause again. Note that he doesn't seem to have ever shown any sign of understanding what the problem was with his prior behaviour. I can see no reason to assume he'd behave differently now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What if he were to request permission to edit a few specific articles (or create new articles) where no other editors were active? I worked on Gamma-ray burst virtually alone for nearly a year. There are many such articles on Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 06:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we should even start considering how far to bend backwards for his sake. I just went through some of his latest article talk contributions from before his block, and I can only say: good riddance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This actually doesn't sound like a bad idea to me, with the proviso that the first time he breaks the conditions he's back on his block. Is there any evidence that he has socked or otherwise misbehaved while blocked? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

The question is, what happens if he makes an edit and some other user disagrees with it? Will that other user than have to face the aggravation of debating Ludvikus? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Then, unless the other user is being patently unreasonable, Ludivkus gets re-blocked for another two years. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

At what point in that process do we re-block? When the other user is driven off the project by frustration? Or slightly earlier? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This editor was given lots of chances and warnings before being blocked for two years, including several previous blocks of short durations leading to a six month block. As such, the two year block is appropriate and I see no reason to unblock them given the near-certainty that they will re-offend. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So, wait, the argument for unblocking him would be "good behavior" in that, what, he hasn't been socking and trying to get around the block? He was given two years. He should serve the entire length. Looking at his talk page, I see someone who has aggravated a lot of people and besides, it was barely a month ago that he thought he was "still being un-reasonable blocked for two years". Saying it's no longer necessary is not the same as being sorry for the headaches you caused. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really look like he's been away --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Good God, no. This user was a nightmare. He was blocked for two years and there was a bloody good reason for it. --Folantin (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Death threats, etc..., by Domisimone

Resolved

 – Indef blocked by Bbatsell. Chamal :  Chat  01:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Domisimone (talk · contribs). For example [3]. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a nutty vandal. These are the kind of threats we get all the time (F*** you! and stuff like that) from these wannabes. Give him sufficient warnings and if he doesn't stop, report to WP:AIV. Looks like he's gone too far already. Chamal :  Chat  01:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Normally I'd wait for the full ration of warnings, but those edits were beyond the pale imo. Don't see a sliver of evidence of even marginally good faith. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible compromised account, but so few edits that it doesn't really matter. Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sensitive IP's - Adding DoD addresses

Just curious: Do you think we should try to contact DISA about getting DoD IP's on the list? Aeon1006's situation with autoblocks came to mind. Glacier Wolf 02:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think DOD will give us a list of their IP addresses to publicize. If I were their CIO, I'd fire anybody who did that. Jehochman ^Talk 06:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Are the addresses actually sensitive? The House and Senate addresses are on there because some of the users of those addresses might raise a stink if they find themselves blocked. --Carnildo (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have often wondered about that; Ooooh, let's make sure that the staff employed by the people voted by the public to serve them are not inconvenienced because they are spending tax dollars on vandalising a website... I should have thought that giving the Washington Post and others a newsfeed of every edit from House of Representatives or Senate ip addresses would ensure that only good edits ever came from those sources. Same thing in the UK - put all edits from the Houses of Parliament ip addresses on a live feed to Fleet Street. I suggest that would end any likelihood of vandalism, POV editing, or misrepresentation from such institutions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is not that you can't block these ranges, it's just that you have to inform the Foundation if you do block them. Happy‑melon 20:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What is sensitive about Quatar? By that logic, we'd have to notify the Foundation every time we blocked any IP, as they're all in a country. Dendodge _T\^C 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's because blocking those two IPs means you block the entire nation of Qatar from editing here. —kurykh 19:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there's only 2 IPs there? My mind put in an imaginary ndash and I saw it as a range. Makes sense now. Dendodge _T\^C 19:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original topic: if they'll actually give you the IP's, go ahead... Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 19:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Slowish edit war w/ BLP undertones at Quinten Hann

Resolved

The subject snooker player's bio has been receiving a fair bit of attention from at least two editors (there may be some socking concerns as well). I recently declined page protection, but a few uninvolved eyes may help. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it has stopped for now. I have added the article to my watchlist and will block if they start up again. Tiptoety ^talk 19:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Deceased actors and their characters: Andy Hallett and Lorne (Angel)

A series of IPs have been reverting me to add "the late" to the Lorne (Angel) article indicate that Andy Hallett has died. I do not see the point in adding "the late" to a fictional character bio: info that the actor has died is contained in the actor's article, and is pretty much irrelevent to the character.

Yet I see, based on an anecdotal and not particularly scientific poll, that we're pretty much inconsistent in how we deal with this. Actually, we are consistent: actors who've died recently or are associated with movements that have fandoms tend to be referred to as "the late" in their signature character articles: Examples G'Kar, Stephen Franklin, Allen Francis Doyle.

Older characters, or actors who've died before Wikipedia, seem to not get the appellation: Charlton Heston as Moses, Lorne Green as Adama

Nor are tables of actors generally updated when cast members die: Carlin and Newman in Cars aren't updated in the table, but their deaths are discussed (appropriately,IMHO) as impacting the sequel.

Unimportant characters don't seem to get the treatment: Sam Kinnison in Back to School,

Musicians don't get tagged as "the late" in the articles of films that feature them: John Bonham, John Lennon

• Has this been brought up and decided before?
• If not, what do folks think? Should this go to RfC, or is there a principle or existing decision involved which makes that moot? Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this is really a Admin Noticeboard issue, but no, there isn't any reason for "the late" to be added to fictional character pages. They are portrayed by the actor, or they were; I had similar issues with Ricardo Montalban on Khan Noonien Singh. Just revert it, they'll stop after a while. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've always taken it that fictional characters never die; Sherlock Holmes, for example, was presumed dead at the Reichenbach Falls but was resurrected due to popular demand; although it was clear that he lived in Victorian times, it's pure nonsense to describe him as "deceased", because he never existed in the first place. It's even more bollocks to describe a character as "deceased" simply because the actor who played him/her has died; that's just a simple confusion between the fictional universe and the real world. --Rodhullandemu 23:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, while I haven't looked into it, I would assume that the OP meant that editors were changing it to say that the fictional character was played by "the late" Andy Hallett. Anyway. Having run across an IP editor adding "the late" in front of the name of a deceased person recently, I looked through the MOS, and couldn't find anything on it. I would have though that "the late" was not a very encyclopedic-toned expression period, for actors, authors, or even zookeepers, especially on a wiki, where there's decent odds that there's a link to that person, which would of course indicate that they are deceased. That, and where does one stop? (Yes, it's a "slippery slope" argument, but still.) Just my (non-admin) $0.02. umrguy42 02:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

IU don;t think the question is whether to say that a fictional character has died, in that or in another fiction. If he clearly does, it's certainly relevant to the discussion of the character's role in the action. If it's left open, it's all the more discussable. The question is whether to add the information about the actor to all articles or mentions about characters whom the actor played. I think doing so is ridiculous. It's like changing every mention of a political figure when he dies. Wikipedia needs upkeep, and we should concentrate on things that really need it, such as the articles on the actors themselves. DGG (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Copyright fraud

User:Universal Hero has uploaded a number of images that he claims to own the copyright of, however this appears not to be the case.

Examples.

• File:Ajithaegan.jpg appears here before being loaded to wikipedia.
• File:Shriya_Saran.jpg this appears to be taken by the same photographer as this copyrighted image.
• the now deleted Image:AVMstudios.jpg was a copyright violation from here , again he claimed ownership of this image. I warned regarding this at the time , the discussion can be seen here User_talk:GameKeeper/Archive_1#Apologies . This was left in the state of either he was lying or another user was lying (as can be seen in the linked talk). I did not persue the matter further as I thought the problem had been removed, the image was gone.

The above images should be deleted, and I can request that via the normal process. What concerns me is that some of this user's uploaded images have now moved to commons, making them harder to track down , secondly it is difficult to locate the original to prove copyright fraud. I can watch this users uploads and check them but some will slip through my net and I do take breaks from wikipedia, if this is the same user who was banned for sockpuppetry previously (see below) he knows how to creat sockpuppets to evade this if he desired.

Otherwise this user makes a huge contribution to the Tamil cinema articles of wikipedia, the only problem I have is this apparent copyright fraud.

For background info:-

I strongly suspect this user is the returned User:Prin/User:Prince Godfather and have been involved in 2 Sockpuppet reports against him. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Universal Hero & Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Universal Hero/Archive. The original user was banned for copyright fraud related incidents. I notived these new copyvios due to checking his images again because of the second case.

GameKeeper (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

More evidence is needed, in my opinion. Universal Hero's upload log shows only two images uploaded so far in 2009. Neither of these has an obvious problem. From his Talk page, one gets the impression that he could have had copyright difficulties in the past. But he does have 18,000 edits and has worked on a lot of articles, so the volume of his work may expose him to more borderline situations. The upload log of User:Prin (who is blocked since 2006) shows many nonsensical uploads, so he seems to be a horse of a different color. The two sock cases listed above closed with no action against Universal Hero, the last case only yesterday. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There is evidence of multiple cases of copyright fraud. I linked the sockpuppetry cases because I wanted to fully disclose my relationship with this user, sockpuppetry is just an internal rule, copyright fraud can have external legal consequences.

The issue I am raising is the copyright fraud, there are 3 clear cases of copyright fraud above and the user's uploads probably contain more. And the fraud continues, In my chat after I raised this case Universal Hero STILL claims copyright to File:Shriya_Saran.jpg despite the evidence I presented, claiming to have personnally taken the photo at an event, but this is not true. I did a bit more checking File:Shriya_Saran.jpg is not from the event as claimed. Here it is from a blog predating the wikipedia upload and was not from the event as started in the file description. Here is the image, here is the context (4th image down). Some of the uploads don't appear in the upload log because they have been moved to commons (as public domain!). I am asking here because I don't know how to proceed, should I track down and check all of this user's uploaded images? Some will not have such easily locatable evidence of fraud. I don't know what the solution is to suggest one, I was hoping that similar issues would have been succesfully dealt with here before. GameKeeper (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for admin closure of the straw poll at Talk:Greece

Implementation or rejection of this proposal requires admin intervention. A lot was written about it both on the talk page and WP:ANI, and any final decision will certainly result in complaints and drama. I suggest that more than one admin provide their opinion on how they would close the straw poll so that there can be an actual consensus among admins, thus minimizing any grounds for the final decision to be disputed endlessly. Thanks. Húsönd 06:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

I have made a request that somebody claimed requires discussion first. It is at Template_talk:Asbox#External_link_icon_on_internal_link. -- IRP ☎ 02:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Worm activation

ProcseeBot recently went off the chart in the number of blocks it's been making. It appears that a worm of some sort activated on April 1st most visibly starting at UTC -7 (towards the bottom), which corresponds to the arrival of April 1st 00:00 in the United States. The worm looks like it opens a socks4 proxy on port 1080. and the infected machines are almost certainly normal end users on dynamic ips as opposed to mis-configured servers.

As a result, I've slashed the block expiry of all of the blocks the bot is now making to 2 months, and instead of flooding the block log to switch the expiry of the blocks, I've set an alarm for myself to explicitly batch re-scan and either leave blocked or unblock everything within the window. Since I also anticipate a lot of users eventually clearing the virus (as their definitions update and/or providers block the port), if you run across an unblock request for a recent block on port 1080 by procseebot and the ip's WHOIS/reverse looks dynamic, it'll likely suffice to simply check if the port's open, and if you get connection refused/connection timeouts messages, it's likely safe to unblock. A quick/easy way is to telnet ip 1080 and if it connects, you don't have to worry about actually checking to see if it's open, as it likely still is, so you can just leave the block as is. If you can't connect, on the other hand, then there's a decent chance the user removed the virus or it's a different user.

My guess is the worm in question is either the Conficker worm or something related to it, but I have no clue and don't really care. If someone wants to report it to symantec or something, feel free, but seeing as most of those types of companies still haven't implemented my proposed Hotline for Smart People Who Actually Have Something Interesting to Show Them, I really can't be arsed to deal with it. :P --slakr^\ talk / 05:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me be the first to chime in with the usual conspiracy rantings about how actually preventing infections is not in those companies' self-interest and how their behavior is consistent with that.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 13:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Abd

Abd has started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG3. It's a rehash of the multiple complaints made here, at ANI, at the blacklist pages, the whitelist pages, WP:RFAR, pages around Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in several pages in his userspace, all of which have been discussed before and have failed to gain traction. His behaviour is, to me, inexplicably obsessive, and his steadfast refusal to accept any answer he does not like is vexatious in the extreme. I have left a comment on the RfC but do not intend to watchlist it or participate further because there is nothing new there which has not already been discussed, and the discussion has in just about every case come out against Abd. He seems to have decided to crusade on behalf of Jed Rothwell, whose topic ban from cold fusion was said by at least one arbitrator to e so obvious as to call into question why I even bothered to ask them to review it, and his website, which has material of unknown copyright status, has been used to falsify sources and is in sundry ways not a reliable source, quite apart from its having been abused by POV-pushers (including Rothwell) in the descent of Cold fusion from FA to arbitration subject.

Abd's obsession is sufficient that I wonder if a topic ban might be appropriate. I'd also invite admins to check his user space, Special:PrefixIndex/User:Abd - there are numerous pages there which amount to "why Abd is right and everybody else is wrong in x dispute", including numerous pages which make statements about individual editors which I do not think are an appropriate use of user space. He shows a long history of restating his side of the story as if it were fact and accepting no consensus which goes against him (see for example User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block). I'm not dealing with this because I try to disengage form those whoa re determined to pick a fight with me. Abd does not want to be disengaged, it seems.

It looks to me as if what he really wants is Jed Rothwell's topic ban lifted and his site removed from the blacklist, so Rothwell can continue trying to reshape the Wikipedia article on cold fusion to reflect the world as he, Rothwell, wishes it to be rather than as it is. This is directly related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, Pcarbonn and Jed Rothwell are co-authors of a Google Knol which restates the pro-CF case in exactly the way the arbitration case found problematic. If anything Rothwell is the worse of the two, he has a longer involvement and there is much more polemical material out there by Rothwell denouncing the scentific establishment for failing to take cold fusion seriously enough. And let's be clear here, this is not about whether he is right or wrong, it's about Wikipedia's core policy of reflecting the world as it is, not as the hard-done-by would wish it to be. If Rothwell's ban is lifted and his site removed form the blacklist two things will happen: Rothwell will continue to try to skew content away from the mainstream, and links to Rothwell's site will continue to have to be scrutinised for bias, copyright issues and the like. WP:C does not make an exception for "convenience" copies, you have to prove that the site has copyright release. There is material there which is copyright Reed Elsevier (to name one at random); Reed Elsevier typically do not grant copyright release for full text of articles. I know, I have asked, and so have co-authors of papers who are contributors to sites in which I am involved. I am sceptical of Rothwell's claims to copyright release.

Anyway, I do not have enough hours in the day to take this to any further dispute resolution, and in any case I think it's best resolved by my continuing to ignore Abd's continual retelling of his (generally rejected) side of the story. He writes thousands of words but appears to read very few written in return, or if he does read them he simply ignores the ones he does not like and acts as if they were never written. I don't have the time or the patience to deal with this foolishness. Ideally I would dig out all the past discussions and note that the complaints are all previously aired, addressed and rejected, but I don't have the time or the energy - frankly it reads to me as plain old-fashioned trolling and I have had more than enough of that. I think my views on civil POV-pushing and the danger of obsessive editors who simply will not take no for an answer, continuing until all others have left or been burned out due to sheer frustration, are well enough known that I can't add much in this particular instance. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration based on my own initial experience with Abd, which is the subject of several of his subpages. I have asked him many times to take the time to compress his thoughts down, but he says that he finds it difficult for a variety of reasons. I'll have a look at the RfC, but it's probably for the best that you've decided to disengage. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The most frustrating part is that I did that a long time back, but he continues to flog the dead horse. The guy has a bad case of WP:STICK. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

At present, that seems reflected in the responses to the RfC. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Permanently blocked editor threatens repeated edit warring

Hi. We've been having lots of problems at Spanish Empire and a few other Spanish history related pages with User:Cosialscastells who was permanently blocked for abuse of an editor, and who has been leveraging sock puppets and anon IPs [4] to continue his edit warring. Today he has made his intentions plain to continue his actions [5].

If I request page protection, it will get refused on the grounds that there has not been enough "recent" activity to warrant it (he crops up once every 24-48 hours). An IP block is difficult because Telefonica de Espana, his IP, appears to have several ranges and I presume admins won't want to block a whole swathe of IPs for this one issue.

What can we do? Ideally, I hope that an admin might be able to indefinitely semi-protect Spanish Empire. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We sit and wait. If he starts up again, we file a WP:SPI case, get a few IP blocks issued, and possibly protect the article depending on how hard it was hit. Just because he threatens disruption does not mean he is going to carry it out, and certainly does not justify protection. Tiptoety ^talk 22:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Resolved

 – Blocked, Tiptoety ^talk 23:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Haven't been active as admin in months, so I will just point it out here: Tom Lennox (talk · contribs) has redirected his user and talk page to User:L3nn0x a couple of weeks ago, so he doesn't receive warnings anymore. However, the real issue is that he looks like a sock of Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs), who is permanent blocked. What are the chances of two users editing the same articles, always trying to categorize them (like discussing if a game is a fighting or party game, if a movie is a thriller or horror movie, etc). I question the stability of the user. As Pé de Chinelo first stated The Dark Knight is a crime movie, a month later he states it is not, he first says Smash Bros is not a fighting game, then he says it is. As Tom Lennox, though, he first mentioned The Dark Knight is not an action film, but a few hours later he says it is not crime, it is action.

Check User cannot be used because Pé de Chinelo was blocked over three months ago. It looks like they are the same person, or several persons sharing the same account. I would have blocked it as sockpuppet, but I haven't been active as admin in months and would prefer someone who has not discussed or reverted him before. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I should add that I have always despised the way Wikipedia "punishes" editors trying to report a 3RR or a sockpuppet, and that I try to prevent those report pages whenever possible. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved the user and usertalk pages back, and am looking into this further. Tiptoety ^talk 23:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

After looking over both of the users contributions it is rather apparent based upon their distinctive editing styles that they are in fact the same person. As such, I have indef blocked Tom Lennox (talk · contribs) as a sock of Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs). Tiptoety ^talk 23:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Mor lam

Resolved

 – Directed to proper venue. hmwithτ 18:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Wikipedia's use of a sans-serif font, it's very hard for someone coming to this article to figure out whether this is "Mor Iam" or "Mor lam". Couldn't we use a seriffed font that makes such things unambiguous, or capitalise both words in the title header? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this isn't the venue for that discussion. 68.76.146.74 (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Village pump (proposals) if you'd like to make this suggestion, since it's the place for discussing new ideas and proposals. The administator's noticeboard is for things that need admin attention. hmwithτ 18:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Users Emptymountains and Truthbody

Could somebody please review the edits of these two users? For many months now they are consistently doing nothing else then spamming articles with books from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (Tharpa publications) and manipulating all articles related to the Shugden-controversy, in order to advertise the their teacher who founded the "New Kadampa Tradition". They remove any critical notes on this teacher in a continuous stream of small edits, so that in the end, virtually all critical notes vanish. Especially the article on Shugden is their main battleground, and many other editors have simply given up on this article because everything is 'manipulated away' by mainly these two users. Kind regards rudy (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Diffs of the disruptive editing would be very helpful.  iMatthew :  Chat  01:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, basically, ALL their edits in Wikipedia are related to their 'mission'. Problem is that the issue is somewhat obscure and hard to explain to someone not involved in Tibetan Buddhism. In a nutshell, they are part of a cult within Tibetan Buddhism under the guidance of their teacher Kelsang Gyatso who founded the 'New Kadampa Tradition' (NKT). There is a dispute with the general Tibetan Buddhist community regarding the practice of a ghost/deity called Shugden. Following this controversy, Kelsang Gyatso was expelled from his monastery etc., and you can find refenrences to this for example in the website of the Tibetan Goverment in Exile at The Tibetan Administration on Controversy Surrounding Dorjee Shugden Practice

In the mean time, the NKT has been expanding in the west quite quickly, often with less then proper means so to speak. Anyway, many of their followers believe that one of the monst important things in life is the worship of the Shugden deity/ghost, and they use all means to convince others that their practice is very mportant. For years, this has led to endless edit-wars in pages like the page on shugden itself, but also because members try to manipulate information on the Wikipedia to introduce their 'plight' on every page that is even slightly related to a subject on (Tibetan) Buddhism. They do this systematically by more or less 'legal' means of spamming book references of their teacher (Tharpa publications), promoting the pages of people who are involved in the practice (like the previous Trijang Rinpoche, trying to manipulate pages of opponents (like the Dalai Lama), or even the pages where they are quoted (a recent example, the page on bodhisattva. They consistently cover up their edits by following up with one or more minor edits, so it looks as if they just added a comma or so, but instead they replaced a book reference of the Dalai Lama with one of their teacher three edits before that. Many different editors in the (Tibetan) Buddhism pages have come across them and were 'defeated' in longer or shorter edit-wars. If it helps, I could ask some of these editors to contact you or to add there comments here??

In short, these users do everyting in their power to 'Game' Wikipedia in their obsession. To be honest, even when they would be banned, it is very likely that 'new' users will pop up to continue their systematic manipulation.rudy (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One more addition. This may sound paranoia, but I suppose that they may have read this notice, and just a few hours ago three brand-new users have popped up: Draesynrei, George415 and Totallydoit who 'by coincidence' continue with exactly the same job. Isn't that strange? These people have become really professional, and I have no idea with how many they are. rudy (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Kelsang Gyatso is not a reliable source, that much seems to be clear. Mitsube (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's really adequate to make a blanket statement that Gyatso or any source affiliated with the NKT is not reliable. I don't know enough about the NKT teachings to identify where they diverge from orthodox Buddhism, but are they really that much more idiosyncratic than, say, the FotWBO or some of the other 'Westerner oriented' hybrid traditions? Obviously divergences from more common positions should not be allowed to be depicted as the majority view, but where the NKT view is in accord with what most sources say, there's no reason to discard those sources. I agree with User:iMatthew that we need specific pages, issues, and diffs to make any useful discussion possible; it's not enough to just issue a blanket condemnation of two editors and then expect people to wade through their entire history looking for problems. I looked at User:Truthbody's edits for a bit and found a few that I find to be idiosyncratic with mainstream Buddhism, or otherwise biased ([6] [7] [8] [9]), but also many edits on the topics that the editor is being accused of maligning where the edits that I looked at (obviously just a sample) all appeared fine, if they do lean a bit heavily on Tharpa books. It's much better to discuss edits, not editors. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Spacemunki, however, I have not accused Kelsang Gyatso for providing only wrong information on mainstream Buddhism. The problem is that with all these edits they are simply turning the Wikipedia into an advertising option for their books and their organisation. For example, when I search for 'tharpa publications' in the Wikipedia, I find about 40 links to their books, and virtually all added in the last month: is it acceptable to use Wikipedia as a free advertising platform?rudy (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrator complaint: Tiptoety

Resolved

 – Reasonable people acting reasonable. Chillum 06:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Formal complaint about Tiptoety

I have received an edit warring warning from an administrator called Tiptoety:User_talk:Betty_Logan#April_2009. The Quinten Hann article has been having large chunks of referenced information deleted and replaced with unreferenced material:[10]. This has been going on all month: [11]

Collapse lengthy blow by blow history/diffs of the Quinten Hann dispute for ease of reading
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The edits were first made by Davidmorris666. He has multiple warnings on his talk page regarding his edits, and he violated 3RR on several occasions: 2009-03-03 15:35 - [12] 15:49 - [13] 16:05 - [14] 16:30 - [15] 2009-03-04 15:22 - [16] 16:01 - [17] 23:42 - [18] 2009-03-05 00:49 - [19] At this point I warned Davidmorris666 that his had violated 3RR: [20]. As a result of this warning Davidmorriss666 stopped editing, and an anonymous editor User:123.2.149.117 started making the EXACT same edits: [21] 2009-03-06 (now by User:123.2.149.117) 01:36 - [22] 10:06 - [23] I tried getting him to discuss the edits on the talk page, but he kept saying the referenced information was wrong and made no attempt to find references backing up his claims: [24] and [25]. I tried to find some references for what he was saying and was only able to validate one or two statistical facts and made these additions to the article on 2009-03-8: [26]. The edits seemed to placate him for a while, and then the vandalism started again last week: 2009-03-24 (still as User:123.2.149.117) 08:38 - [27] 2009-03-25 14:10 - [28] 2009-03-30 15:17 - [29] 16:02 - [30] After warning him a couple more times ([31]), a new user called Jamesworthy started making the exact same edits as the anonymous editor:[32]. 2009-03-30 (now by Jamesworthy) 17:03 - [33] 2009-03-31 04:29 - [34] Since Jamesworthy was a new editor making the exact same edits, I firmly believed he was the same editor as User:123.2.149.117 and Davidmorris666. I reported him for what I believed was a 3RR violation and Jamesworthy was accordingly blocked for 24 hours: [35] Once the block was up, hoever the reverts started up again: 2009-04-01 19:26 (User:123.2.149.117) - [36] 2009-04-02 03:48 (Jamesworthy) - [37] At this point I applied for semi-protection for the page since I believed it to be in the best interests of the article, but the request was declined on the basis there wasn't enough recent dispruption: [38]. I was told to file a sockpuppet case since the edits of all the three editors were limited to jus this one article. I decided not to bother because by then I was tired of filing complaints and no support being given to me. The reverts continued. 2009-04-02 12:49 (Jamesworthy) - [39]

On 2009-04-03 I yet again restored deleted referenced information, and this is when an administrator, Tiptoety acted inappropriately in my view. He left me a message on my talk page warning me about edit warring and threatening to ban me: User_talk:Betty_Logan#April_2009. There are several reasons why I find this insulting:

1. I was restoring REFERENCED information which was being removed by THREE editors with no edit history outside of the Quinten Hann article and replaced with UNREFERENCED information. To me this is a clear case of vandalism, and I am justified in restoring the material.
2. The warning was one-sided. I received a warning despite not violating 3RR, while the other editor who has received a 24-hour ban did not.
3. I have made reasonable attempts to avert the edit warning. These including disccsuion on the talk page which resulted in ME TRACKING DOWN REFERENCES FOR THE OTHER EDITOR'S CLAIMS. Just so I could put a stop to the reverts. I have also taken the issue to the edit warring board which result in Jamesworthy's ban, and to the semi-protection board.

When I took these claims to Tiptoety, I met with an obnoxious response that I had to "follow the same rules", and while neither of us had "violated 3RR" we both engaged in edit warring. I take exception to this. If we both had broken the rules why didn't the other party get warned too? Tiptoety clearly hadn't done his homework because the other party clearly had violated 3RR since he received a ban. And am I really engaing in edit warring if I am restoring REFERENCED information, which had been deleted and replaced with UNREFERENCED information? This isn't a difference in point of view. One editor wants to use sourced facts, the other doesn't! Clearly that is a case of vandalism and I am in my right to revert that?

The article is clearly being vandalised, but yet I am given no support whenever I do ask for help, and end up being censured by an ignorant administrator who can't even be bothered to get his facts right, let alone help to resolve the issue. It very much seems I will be banned if I continue restoring the referenced information, so from now on I will not be making any more reverts, and I will just let the other editor gut the article of its referenced facts and replace them with inaccurate and unreferenced material. There's not much else I can do is there? Tiptoety can't be bothered to do his job properly, he just wants to go around articles throwing his weight around and targetting people who are trying to stop an article being vandalised. Since he's an admin I very much doubt nayone will come out on my side in all of this, but the ball is in your court now. If you want a naff article full of made -up and unsoruced facts then you're welcome to it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• User notified about this thread off-wiki.  iMatthew :  Chat  01:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• The warring users mentioned are a clear case of multiple account abuse, I am going to block them indefinitely and the IP for while as still active today. Mfield (Oi!) 01:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• So, what exactly did Tiptoety do wrong? Grsz¹¹ 02:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed that the other users who are now blocked were acting incredibly disruptively, not engaging in any talk, and sock puppeting to get around 3RR. I can't answer for why you received a warning and the other editors did not all receive the same warning. It is probably largely since the the sockpuppetry was obfuscating what was happening. I don't think that you having to "follow the same rules" is an obnoxious response, in fact edit warring is always treated the same on all sides, 3RR is a hard and fast rule except for a few exceptions like the reversion of obvious vandalism. Your 3RR warning was a standard templated warning, not a personalised censuring. Admins don't take sides over 3RR, and you reverts were plain and simple reverts with no edit summaries to specify that sourced material was being removed or that you were labelling their edits as vandalism. Your efforts to protect the content of the article are appreciated. As a bit of advice on these situations, next time it is best to disengage from the edit war and seek help somewhere else rather then getting dragged into the revert game, as someone who is prepared to abuse multiple accounts will win in the short term. The other editors are now blocked, I will watch the article. If new editors or IPs return to the same pattern and refuse to discuss then give them standard warnings for content deletion or vandalism and seek help rather than let yourself get drawn in. Mfield (Oi!) 02:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just as a side note, the other editor was already given quite a few earlier warnings and had he continued to revert at all he would have immediately been met with a block. I went out of my way to issue the above editor a warning, when I could have easily blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 02:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I sure appreciate the 30 seconds you took to slap a template on my talk page rather than just banning me outright. For the record, I had left plenty of warnings on the other editor's discussion pages, and reported him on two other boards. If Tiptoety had been even handed in this and decided to warn all parties involved (as surely he would do if he wasn't taking a side) then he would have seen the other messages, and the 24 hour ban the other editor had received, and the effort I had made to try and get the vandal to come to the discussion page to talk about it. A quick look at the edit history of the article and he might have noticed that bots and other editors had also participated in reverting the article to its proper state. Since I've only made one revert over the last couple of days since I was holding back to see if the reports I'd made through the proper channels would have any effect, then I would like to see how TipToety would justify banning me, just for one revert.

So I have several questions:

1. If the rules apply to everyone, why was only I reprimanded? Why didn't Tiptoety reprimand the other editor? Is there anyone here who doesn't think he took a one-sided approach to this edit conflict, and that is appropriate?
2. Looking at the history of the conflict does anyone think I didn't do enough to avoid the edit conflict i.e. leaving warnings on the editor's talk page, try to discuss it with them on the article talk page, look for references for what they claim even though that's their responsibility if they want to make an addition to the article, and bring the problem up on two report boards. Is this what you call "don't allow yourself to be drawn into an edit war". What is one to do other than revert the changes?

Tiptoety's defence is that my reverts weren't appropriately commented. Fair enough. But when I contacted him about the issue outlining the problem, did he make any attempt to address the situation? Did he then go and leave messages on the other editor's page. Did he remove the template on my page and simply leave a request to comment my reverts and offer assistance if the vandalism should continue. No of course not, he's not interested, he's got to issue his warning and that's it as far as he's concerned, I'm just as guilty as the other party possibly more since I got the warning. I'm sorry, I think it's a poor show by an admin. I was acting in the best interests of the article and he simply wasn't interested, as far as he was concerned it was nothing to do with him once he'd laid down the law. If this is the type of person you want for admin then best of luck. Betty Logan (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly that is not Tiptoety's defence (that your reverts weren't appropriately commented), that was a comment that I made from looking at the article history, your reverts were straight reverts with no comments. I am not in a position to know how much time Tiptoety spent looking through all of the edits, I am explaining how the situation will appear to someone faced with an ongoing edit war. The first port of call is the article history and if there is a rash of revert, revert, reverts with no commentary, there is nothing to distinguish one editor's actions from the others. Templated warnings are standard practice in these situations, to attempt to prevent the situation continuing. As the other editor was prepared to sock to get around the 3RR issue, you weren't going to be able to keep reverting them. As for not getting drawn in, there are no real emergencies in these situations, everything is revertable here, so just warn the other editors, revert as often as you can and, if it is getting out of hand, let the other editor have their way for a while and wait for help to arrive. It can always be fixed after the fact. It is not worth the stress caused to yourself by letting yourself get dragged in and try and fight it alone. I am sorry that you did not get a response from the avenues you pursued, the page protection request would have been judged by the admin based on what they could see happening right at that moment. It was a shame that you decided not to file the SSP case you were recommended to, as that was an obvious case that would have resulted in the blocks that are now in place being put in place much earlier. Mfield (Oi!) 04:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Betty, but when you make reverts like this which restore a spelling error among reverting other things, I find it hard to believe that you were acting completely appropriately. Be far more careful when you start reverting. Otherwise, it undermines the rest of your actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at little closer, then you will see that is part of a bigger revert. I could not revert the vandalism without doing it. If you look at my very next edit that spelling error is not there. I think it's unfair to say I don't have the best interests of the article at heart, I didn't write it I just restored referenced material that was being removed and replaced with unreferenced material. I tried several different approaches to resolve the situation. I cut down my reverts to one a day. And yet I'm still in the wrong because I'm accusing an admin of acting inappropriately. If you want to close ranks fair enough, he's one of the boys I get that, and I appreciate the action taken to secure the article this evening, but i think it's unfair to say I don't have the best interests of the article at heart since all I've done is tried to maintain the referenced version. Betty Logan (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, you're getting confused here. AGF a bit. Tiptoety makes it very clear in the comment above yours that the other editor had been given enough warnings already and there was no need for more. It indicates that if there would have been any more reverts from him, he'd have been blocked. You on the other hand, have received a fair warning. How do we know whether you're acting in good faith or not unless we notify you about it? What you have to do then is explain what you have done and why. It's true you haven't violated 3RR, but it still looks like edit warring at first glance (as Ottava's example shows) and the history shows a load of reverts. Chamal ^talk 04:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the spelling correction (the spelling error introduced by the vandal I may add!) so I could revert the vandalism. It wouldn't let me do it otherwise because. If Tiptoety didn't warn the other editor becasue he already had multiple warnings from different editors, then maybe he should have considered his actions a bit more. This is what I expected though, no-one has come out and said it was a poor show from Tiptoety even though if he had been even handed then he would have quickly realised this was a case of vandalism (which the 3RR rule doesn't apply to I might add!). There is a clear line between editorial conflict and vandalism. And yet I get the stick for being involved in an 'edit war' even though I dispute it was one and being 'drawn' into it (in actual fact I tried everything to stop it and that just included returning the article to its unvandalised state), and for not commenting my reverts (which is a fair point, but a weak one beacuse it's actually moot when you consider the fact that anti-vandalism bots a few edits down have performed the same reverts so you've got to wonder right?). If I hadn't reverted at all then it would have been in an erroneous state for a month now. The bottom line is I took all reasonable courses of action, and I think I was dealing with it pretty well actually, trying lots of different things, cutting my reverts down to one a day, and I don't think I was treated particularly well by Tiptoety, and a reasonable admin would have looked into it when I brought it to his attention rather than simply me the "rules apply to me as well". We all know that is a brush off comment, and while all the same rules apply to all of us I don't necessarily agree that the same rules are always applicable to both parties in a particular situation, and someone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be an admin. Betty Logan (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But the rules do apply to you as well. I am not sure how, by me stating that you are not exempt from the rules, I have done something wrong. Tiptoety ^talk 04:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But I would say the rule you tried to apply was not applicable. You accused me of edit warring. The 3RR rule does not apply to clear cut cases of vandalsim, and surely excising large chunks of referenced material and replacing them with unsourced facts constitutes vandalism? I would think so under most interpretations. This was not a conflict over editorial control. It was a clear cut case of removing vandalism. Fair enough, that might not have been clear from looking at the article history, although bot reverts are a clear indication, but none of this is the point. I brought it up with you and you didn't even bother to look into it. Either I was legit and was doing the right things in which case you could have offered support, or I was doing it wrong and you could have offered guidance. Instead I got a slap in the face and told I was half of the problem and all I was trying to do was make sure the article stayed referenced. I take issue with the response I got. Betty Logan (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Betty - reread WP:3RR. You will see that "3RR is not a right". You do not get three reverts a day. It is just a line but edit warring is not simply "3RR". Edit warring is the process of reverting with another user without discussion and applies to both sides. Just don't put yourself into those positions. Its not worth it. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

On closer inspection, I don't think that Betty Logan was edit-warring, but the lack of substantive edit summary did give an impression of it. The warning was a mistake, but I don't think there is much constructive to do at this stage than to simply say the warning was a mistake and was regrettable, to urge Tiptoey to be more careful in his warnings, and to urge Betty Logan to employ better edit summaries. —kurykh 04:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think betty was edit warring either. I think the warning was an honest error. Disruptive edits by single purpose accounts/obvious sockpuppets do need to be reverted after all. Better edit summaries may have helped avoid this misunderstanding, it is hard to tell. I don't think there was any ill motives by any of the parties here so hopefully this can be put to rest without any hard feelings? Chillum 05:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Defiantly no ill motives or hard feelings here. Tiptoety ^talk 05:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I was probably more angry with Tiptoety than was warranted, but I was angry mainly because I had actually taken substantial steps to make the article stable. I could accept that Tiptoety hadn't apreciated the context which is why I did contact him, but it was the response I got that made me mad. Anyway, I will certainly make sure that my reverts are better commented in the future and hopefully it will prevent something like this. The main thing is that the situation with the article has actualy been resolved, so Tiptoety has actually done me a favour this evening. Betty Logan (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Roces 1.jpg

Resolved

 – Chamal ^talk 02:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no Edit link on File:Roces 1.jpg? I wanted to nominate it for speedy deletion as an ad. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit link appears fine for me. Chamal ^talk 02:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it is hosted on Wikimedia commons. [40]. Tiptoety ^talk 02:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, duh. Thanks. Now I feel like a fool.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Then how come I get it? :S Chamal ^talk 02:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying clicking on it, there is nothing there. ;-) Tiptoety ^talk 02:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

My turn to feel like a fool... :D Chamal ^talk 02:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Serious Spam and Erasure of criticism sections etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Envision_EMI,_LLC&diff=prev&oldid=281289135

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Youth_Leadership_Forum&diff=next&oldid=261286708

Thank god for wikipedia, I almost signed registered my brother before clicking on the History tab of the article. I suggest to semi-protect both pages until April 25th, as that is the last day to sign up for their Nonprofit forum. The company spent 40% of its budget contracting to a for-profit company, EMI, which is definitely Notable, and the source was irs.gov, definitely verifiable. This kind of spamming represents the most serious kind of spam to wikipedia, we're talking $2500 not including airfare, and based on quadruple occupancy for 10 days.

Thanks, and you have earned yourself a new, volunteer editor! JameKelly (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted and warned Smohabeer (talk · contribs) about using Envision EMI, LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for advertising. I can't see the problem with National Youth Leadership Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but if there is one, you are free to edit the article yourself to remedy it.  Sandstein  06:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:ROUGE

So is it rəʊɡ or ruːʒ? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 18:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely the latter.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Its both. Synergy 18:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't require admin attention. hmwithτ 19:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Appeal from merger of "Serratio peptidase" into "Serratiopeptidase"

The merger (which took place over protests in the "talk page" for the article "Serratio peptidase") involved deletion of almost all the content of the article "Serratio peptidase", despite the content deleted being greater that the content in the other article retained. The article retained was poorly written and cited only irrelevant references which did not support that author's thesis. The material deleted from the other article, on the contrary, was cogently written and cited pertinent references which strongly supported the other author's thesis. We request uninvolved editors' action on this matter, to obviate an edit war.0XQ (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll probably want to go to WP:DR, the deletion review board, and file an appeal there. ThuranX (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a POV fork and was simply redirected, there was no deletion and nothing in this case to merge. It has been discussed on the Talk:Serratiopeptidase. The fork even had the same name! OXQ can propose adding any material to the Serratiopeptidase article on the talk page. There really is nothing to see here. Verbal chat 21:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Axelrod (actor) image

It has recently come to my attention that Robert Axelrod (actor) is not all too happy with Tsubasacon releasing an image of him under Creative Commons to Wikipedia. The image has already been removed once before from the article by an SPA,[46] and the attribution was removed from the image at around the same time by a different SPA.[47] Since I was the one who originally uploaded the image as a representative of Tsubasacon and would prefer the image to stay, I'm not exactly sure what should be done under Wikipedia's policies. --Farix (Talk) 21:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrative help needed in stopping racist propaganda and vandalism

89.186.103.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 89.186.107.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have apparently decided to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for an anti-Gypsy campaign. While some of this user's edits constitute overt and easily recognizable racist vandalism [48], other edits are problematic in a more subtle way. For instance, he seems particularly fond of vandalizing quotations to directly misrepresent the words of the original authors: in [49], he maliciously modifies a quotation from [50]. In the same edit, this user also injects racist soapboxing into the article. While this troublesome user seems to have access to a range of dynamic IP addresses, it seems worthwhile to semi-protect Antiziganism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with which he seems obsessed, and the BLP Viktória Mohácsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which he has also targeted for his vitriol [51]. Declaring this user banned would also be helpful, so that he could be quickly reverted as many times as needed without examining each particular edit to determine whether it meets the technical criteria of vandalism. Erik9 (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)