Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive431

User:Ramsey89

Resolved

When are kids going to learn that posting personal info may well get them in trouble? Please blank this kid's vanity page and delete the edit history ASAP. He posted damned near everything but his address and phone number. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the article immediately. I think it's something of a losing battle to get kids to not give out information online. Online isn't real-life and they don't believe the two would ever coincide (cf the bomb, death and suicide threats we deal with - all kids not expecting the FBI/Scotland Yard at their front door). All we can do is delete on sight. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 07:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page forgery

Resolved

Be advised that, following a recent block, 219.23.5.48 has forged multiple comments from another user (i.e., User:CalendarWatcher), using that user's signature, on his (i.e., the anon. user's) own talk page. I removed the phony signature once and advised 219.23.5.48 against this sort of behaviour, but that has not deterred him whatsoever. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted and the page protected. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 09:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Stu8912 and repeated copyvio image uploads

Stu8912 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly uploaded copyvio images (and has uploaded a certain few multiple times), and has not repsonded to his fellow editors' requests to stop doing so. His talk page shows his somewhat lengthy history of copyvio problems, as well as a prior 24-hour block for copyvio uploading. He seems to be fixated on topics relating to and including Angelo State University and San Angelo Stadium, and I honestly think he is unaware that what he is doing is wrong. I suggest another block of an even longer timespan as a way to get this point across to him, and a semi-protection of the Angelo State University article.--Dynamite Eleven (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't been online for about two weeks, so my inclination is that this is kind of stale. A block would likely expire before the editor comes back. Semi-protection won't do anything since he's a registered user. --Selket ^Talk 06:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're gonna have to forgive my relative ignorance on this complaint process (I prefer doing smaller edits; I'm only doing bringing this up here because he's been a recurring annoyance). Stu8912 has a pattern of going offline for a while, then returning to upload many of the same copyvio images, before going back offline for another while, etc. This is why I suggest a substantially longer block (if possible) for the user, because when he DOES return, he'll likely resort to his same shenanigans all over again unless action is taken.--Dynamite Eleven (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dynamite XI makes a good point, so I have blocked the editor for one month (per this, with comments) so they will have their attention drawn to the communities concerns. While the tariff may appear harsh it seems to be the only way further disruption can be countered, and I would have no objection to it being reduced when the editor makes contact and realises the problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:77.102.168.180

Resolved

 – it's a dedicated IP, blocked a month --Rodhullandemu 12:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User is a persistent Date of Birth and infobox vandal, specifically on pages of Kellie Shirley and Matt Di Angelo. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7. User has been warned constantly (and has only just been released from a block) but continues to vandalise and ignore the warnings. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 11:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Moulton is asking to be unblocked

Resolved

 – Temporary unblocked by Thatcher. Don't forget to lock the door behind you :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Last night, when I was creating a new login for myself on MetaWiki, the registration page invited me to avail myself of the new Global Account Management feature. That sounded sensible, especially if I was going to register also on WikiBooks and/or Wikiversity.

However, I ran into a small technical glitch...

Login unification status

---

From Meta

Your home wiki (listed below) is blocked from editing. Please contact a sysop in this wiki to unblock it. While it is blocked, you cannot merge your accounts.

Home wiki

---

The password and e-mail address set at this wiki will be used for your unified account. You will be able to change which is your home wiki later.

    * en.wikipedia.org (home wiki)

So I would request to be unblocked on the English Wikipedia for the express purpose of availing myself of the Unified Account Management feature so that I may ply my craft, under a unified WikiMedia Login ID, on more collegial and congenial projects (other than the English Wikipedia) sponsored by the WikiMedia Foundation.

Note, also, that I had previously asked you to remove the block which prevents me from creating or editing subpages in my user space here on the English Wikipedia.

Also, please see this item, which raises the issue of which party has the ethical responsibility to undo an unethical act, once it's raised to their attention.

Moulton (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The above was posted at User talk:Moulton#Civility As a Tool Against Academic Excellence. I am cross posting this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton. I suggest the conversation take place there. I believe we should AGF and unblock. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

/facepalm.

Right, everyone stay calm, please. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion - temporarily' unblock Moulton, allow him to merge his accounts, then reblock his en.Wiki account. This will allow him to edit on other projects, and does not commit us to unblocking Moulton here. Neıl 龱 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He is allowed to edit on other projects, he can create an account there, he just can't do it through unified login. Fram (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure what harm it would do to allow a user to use SUL. Moulton, in particular, is an unusual case - he was never really a bad faith editor, more that he is unwilling/unable to work within the parameters of en.Wikipedia. Neıl 龱 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict) I don't see what this has to do with AGF. He can still create those accounts the old-fashioned way, one by one, where needed. If he is blocked on en.wikipedia, he is not allowed to create or edit subpages here. When he has an account on Wikibooks or wherever else he prefers, he can probably create and edit user subpages over there. I don't see the need for us to undo his block for the specified reasons. Fram (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion please. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I refuse on principle to use AN subpages; they are stupid. If you wish to copy my comment to there, that would be okay.Neıl 龱 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, if you don't discuss there, we're going to have conflicting resolutions to the problem. Possibly leading to wheel wars. So, just this once then, please give in to the evil and keep discussion in one place. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Done This is fairly routine and has been done for users much more annoying and troublesom than Moulton, so no reason to refuse, especially if he plans to contribute productively to other wikimedia projects. Thatcher 14:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you, Thatcher. Neıl 龱 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:SOAPy user talk

Resolved

 – user indef blocked, talk page blanked and locked by Gwen Gale

Would User talk:Dzonatas be considered a little outside the bounds of the standard unblock requests, etc. that might be brought forward by an indefinitely-blocked user? I'm tempted to blank and lock myself, but thought I'd request some other thoughts first (besides, I'm kind of busy). Tony Fox (arf!) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As much to help the indef blocked editor as anyone else, I have blanked and locked the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This user keeps creating hoaxes faking a game that either does not exist or a totally not popular fan game of the original Galaxy Angel

The user Galaxyangelnew is creating hoaxes in a few articles faking a game(Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers Shooter Version) that does not exist. The game is not sourced and on top of that got no google results. If the game can contain units from two Japanese company as well as a North America company and uses so many music from different series just because it is from the same composer(while it is not by the same composer as well like his/her claim), it must be extremely easy to find sources and does not have to keep reverting the pages without having one and ignoring the warnings. MythSearcher^talk 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This user created a new account: User:Galaxyangelwork and uses the IP: 122.53.166.111 for his/her vandalism acts. MythSearcher^talk 15:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I watchlisted the article. And those accounts. We'll see what happens. Grandmasterka 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Spammer?

Resolved

 – Confirmed as spam and indef blocked by Hu12

Meddevicefan (talk · contribs)is adding tons of external links to a particular set of websites. Second opinion wanted, is this spam? Corvus cornix_talk 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks problematic. Some form of advertising? Even if not advertising, the additions aren't improving the pages. It could likely be good faith additions, though, might want to first address with the user things like WP:EL. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It sure looks like promotion for a manufacturer of (an admittedly cool) surgical device. There's no reason to have external links on every Wikipedia page for every condition that can be treated laparoscopically. They can have a couple of links on the page about the device itself (see Da Vinci Surgical System); the rest is overkill. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

These links have been removed in the past (first half of 2007) due to their being determined to be spam-related. See Dfiinter (talk · contribs), 68.33.211.237 (talk · contribs), and 65.160.57.101 (talk · contribs). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam Advert only account, blocked accordingly. persistant spamming--Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the second opinions. Corvus cornix_talk 21:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

G11 deletion

• • NOt exactly resolved, but nothing left to do or see here. Archiving. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been an admin for 90 minutes and I already am bringing stuff to you guys. To take my tools for a spin, I deleted some easy CSDs - no problem there - and Koingo Software this one keeps popping up. Certainly G11 when I deleted twice, its now back and I'm second guessing myself. Can I get another pair of eyes on this? Tan | 39 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Keeper76 deleted it already. Water under the bridge.--Atlan (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it too late to retract my nom? What have we done? Are you in CAT:AOR? Obvious, blatant adverting, and WP:COI to boot. Deleted again, if it comes back, then a strong usertalk warning may be in order. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not an admin but there's some claim to notability (featured in numerous Mac and technology magazines and web sites - including MacAddict) so ask the editor to provide third party references. If they can't, prod it. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(ECx4) (!) Welcome to Adminship. You'll see a lot of these. In this case, the author appears to be attempting to comply with policy (they removed links to products, for example). So, I'd recommend that they draft an article in their userspace, citing independent sources (Google news offers several), and focusing on what the company is and why they are notable, not necessarily why their products are awesome. Either they'll come up with a neutral piece (the company may be notable, after all), or they will not. Either way, giving them a Plan B (the draft in userspace) avoids WP:BITE. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

After three rapid recreations, salted for 6 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a usernameblock for the account that keeps creating the article.--Atlan (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeper User already indefblocked after a fourth recreation. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't indef block anybody, check the log. This user is getting railroaded at the moment, way overboard compared to his "crimes" of attempting to write an article. Like life in prison for stealing a loaf of bread, really. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested usernameblock. No need to block indef just yet.--Atlan (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The user involved (Koingosw (talk · contribs)) continues to blank his talk page following the block. While I have no problem with blanking one's own talk page in general, I do believe that past discussions have said that messages such as block notices need to remain. Can an admin comment and/or take a look? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind - the page was protected while I was posting here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that takes care of that, though I imagine we could have gotten by without taunting the block-ee. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my bad. I get a little upset when people keep posting self-promotional stuff. I see this all the time on new-page patrol, though most aren't as stubborn as this one. Having said that, he should have been blocked much earlier on a username violation. OK, time for a brief Wikibreak - or as the little lady calls it, "Go mow the dang lawn before it starts raining!" Oh, well ... - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to wheelwar over it, and I agree the article doesn't belong here in it's current state (I deleted it twice myself). But this user has just been railroaded out the door, and can't even edit his talkpage to make a plea. He's pissed off right now, likely rightfully, but perhaps he has a case/or could build an article? I'm recommending an unprotection of his usertalk. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course. He should at least be allowed to suggest a new username on his talk page. I don't even know why his talk page was protected really.--Atlan (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I just unprotected. Left him/her a message explaining why everyone reacted how they did(repeated recreation is generally frowned upon). We'll see if he/she is still around. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To Tanthalas - thanks for bringing this issue here. Admins new and old should bring things they're not sure about or are worried about straight to one of the admin boards for discussion. We're a collaborative editing environment, so it always helps to talk stuff over. In this case, yes, you're right to pause after repeated recreation of an article and ask yourself if you've done wrong, just in case. Then, as here, if you haven't, move the article to the creator's userspace, salt the original title and move-protect the copy and then contact the user on their talk page and, without using templates, explain where the article now lives, what is wrong with it and how they can improve it and how they can contact you. A spammer will detonate all over you, so can be ignored. A genuine fan of the subject will tell you more or ask for help. Either way, Wikipedia has won. We should always be ready to userfy and help, just in case, despite the extra work. And I'm aware I've got someone waiting for help in exactly these circumstances that I haven't yet provided, so don't point it out :o) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 20:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit summary vandalism intervention?

An anonymous editor added a patently offensive edit summary to the Terry McAuliffe article. Is there anything that can be done about that? Please direct me elsewhere if appropriate -- I couldn't find any resources that explained what to do in the case of "edit summary vandalism". Thanks, -- Shunpiker (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, maybe not. This guy has quite a few offensive edit summaries ([1]). I've deleted one from the history - the others? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While WP:OVERSIGHT is typically a little heavy-handed for simple vandalism, I don't think we want this guy's racist and sexist tirades preserved for posterity any time someone opens up the page history. I'd be in favor of getting rid of it. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted all the offensive edit summaries except for the first two remaining on the contribution list, which are to articles that probably have over 5000 edits. Can someone with greater powers than I help with this? NawlinWiki (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)`

WP:UAA backlog

Resolved

 – Normal service has now been resumed - Alex Muller 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Usernames for Administrator Attention could, uh, use some administrator attention. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Immediate Full protect Warren G. Harding

Colbert on it, claims harding was a 'negro' based on Mclaughlin report, probably worth protecting all 43, after the litany of accusations he just made. ThuranX (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for protection should be made at WP:RFPP :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally, yes. In this case, WP:IAR prevails. Within a minute of a televised suggestion by Stephen Colbert to his audience that they check out a certain Wikipedia page and make alterations, we can pretty well count on significant vandalism without immediate full protection. It's one of those "find the first possible admin" cases, and this is the page most watched by admins so it's the right place to come. Risker (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To paraphrase Groucho Marx, you're fighting for this man's honor, which is more than he ever did. Maybe we should go to the Stephen Colbert page, and vandalize it by calling him a journalist or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And while we're handling this, Franklin Pierce is getting hit as well, let's lock it before his show hits the west coast.. ThuranX (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We've come a long ways since McLean Stevenson would be on the Carson show and ask everyone in Bloomington, Illinois to flush their toilets at the same time so that his pal at the city reservoir could watch for a sudden dip in the water pressure; or since Soupy Sales asked all the kiddies in the audience to mail him some of those pieces of paper with Presidents' pictures on them, that they could find in Dad's wallet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there a town in Iowa that voted that way during the caucuses a few years ago? Can't remember which one. They measured the water levels to determine the winner. Oh, and I semiprotected Pierce for you.  :) Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know. But I know this: Harding and Pierce are one thing. But if they mess with my man, Millard Fillmore, there will be blood. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I copied Image:Warren G Harding portrait as senator June 1920.jpg from commons and protected it (just to be safe). So someone remember to delete it in a couple of days. --Selket ^Talk 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He didn't actually say anything about vandalizing wikipedia, but he did show on-screen a version of the wikipedia article on Harding asserting that his middle name is "Gangsta". --Random832 (contribs) 01:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work on dealing with the flood of vandalism, but do we have an extended long term plan on what to do about this? JeanLatore (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you mean this specific incident, they will move on. If you mean what to do if Colbert keeps doing this sort of this then I intend to laugh each time. _{1 != 2} 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't think we need one, outside of the usual "keep eyes on it" method. Semi-protect if needed, full if things get heinous. Hot spots like this show up from time to time, from any number of outside sources. Rather than fighting it, we can turn it into an opportunity to recruit new or returning users. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've combined this from a new section below, to keep all this in one place. ThuranX (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Colbert would like having it pointed out that he's a modern-day answer to Soupy Sales. He might like it. Then again, he might not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

self promotion links

Hi. User Mikemaadogg (talk · contribs) has only added links to one website which leads me to believe this might be self-promotion. I originally removed the links because I felt much of the info on this website is incorrect or not necessary. I wrote on his userpage a few days ago but he has not replied and has undo my removal of the links. What do others think about this? Thanks --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a factual website relating to Chinese finance, and the ".gov.cn" reference is a bit of a giveaway. In what way is it promotional? This site does not sell products as far as I can see. And how do you judge the accuracy or relevance of the information on it? --Rodhullandemu 01:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rod. I'm not sure which edit you are referring to but most of them are to the SWF institute, which is a non-profit organization. Some of their information is incorrect or in some cases copyrighted materials. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Left a note requesting some response from Mikemaadogg; no particularly strong feeling on the site itself, as of yet, but the single-minded pursuit of links to it suggests a possible COI. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Luna. Let's see what he says. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

make it stop, please

Resolved

 – Bot is functioning perfectly according to its mandate, and the relevant policy has been explained to Ritzbitz. Issues with WP:NFCC and/or the bot's mandate should be handled elsewhere

it keeps removing sound clips from the page im editing. it isnt even in article space, it removed the photos too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What did? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a little checking, so let me try to rephrase Ritzbitz00's complaint so other's can understand it:

Ritzbitz is working on a draft article in userspace: User:Ritzbitz00/Maximum Bob (singer) (Not sure if this would pass WP:Notability, but let's remain agnostic about that for now, shall we?) He is adding non-free images and sound clips to the draft article (again, remaining agnostic for now as to whether the NFCC justification is valid or not). BJBot is removing them since non-free content is prohibited outside of article space -- BJBot does not realize this is a draft article.

Not sure what the policy is here...? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this article was previously deleted here and endorsed at deletion review. However, judging by the discussions the problem was lack of content which appears to be fixed now. I suggest moving the article to mainspace and allowing Ritzbitz to continue working on it. BradV 19:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy is to make the images links rather than inline: [[:Image:Example.png]] instead of [[Image:Example.png]]. When the draft is moved to mainspace, convert them back to inline images. --Carnildo (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I had userfied this after a DRV and unless there are some sources it needs to be deleted again and am in contact with rizbtitz for this part. I advised him generically on fair use, and that the sound clips can't substitute for references. As far as i see licensing info is incorrect. If it can be fixed they might be usable in the Deli Creeps article, but I am not much into sound and images. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it correct to use a FUR to temporally "save" the sound sample until the draft is restored to mainspace? See my test addition of a userspace FUR. Or it's better to just delete it in order to disincentive non-free content, and let him re-upload the sample when he finds an article for it? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

When drafting or storing an article in user space, one can use nowiki like this: <nowiki>whatever should not be in user space, like categories</nowiki>. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For the oggs and other stuff, I don't find it appropriate to "save" stuff. Let it be deleted as orphaned (comment it out in the draft) and when moved back, simply ask an administrator to restore it. That would not be a controversial deletion and restoration, I think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Block the bot This is, once again, an instance of copyright paranoia taken to the extreme. There is no reason whatsoever to ban fair-use from userspace. Do you honestly think someone can sue based on namespace?!? Of course not, Wikipedia is a project taken as corpus and as such it is immaterial what namespace an image is used in. The only possibly valid complaint is the context in which the image is being used. Since drafts are obviously intended to be articles, there is no substantiated argument for removal here. The bot should be stopped at once from further vandalism. Enough of the wiki-lawyering, let editors edit in peace without stupid bots making their lives harder. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a perfect good reason to ban fairuse from userspace: it's against policy. If you want to argue policy, argue it. Don't blame the bot for people not following it. --- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a violation of WP:AGF for a bot to remove it. Stop making extra work for editors attempting to contribute in good faith. I suggest this is an excellent reason to apply WP:IAR to WP:NFCC, since it is hampering the good-faith contributions of editors simply because a WP:FRINGE group of so-called "freedom" activists WP:OWN the WP:NFCC policy pages (what WP:IAR was made for). There is no benefit to the project by enforcing this ridiculous rule in such an absurd manner. I would submit it is simply policy for policy sake and not the rational application of such. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent evaluation of what is happening here:

“ This is an mind-numbingly stupid discussion. Everybody remembers my old userpage, and nobody gave a fuck about it until I ran for arbcom. Of course, it was summer, I was busting my ass for this site, editing around the clock, and most people (myself included) felt like I was doing something useful, so nobody cared. These days I find it more interesting to stare at the ceiling or out the window. Editing this site has clearly lost all of its recreational value for me. I don't think I'm alone in my sentiment. And it gets worse, every time some a critical mass of limp-dicked busybodies assembles to write their life-saving new rules, not because there is any real problem to be addressed, oh no, but because they have a biological need something for something easier to enforce. You're already in their crosshairs, they've just been fabricating a good enough reason to fire. To anybody reading this, if you feel like I'm describing you, please unplug your computer, box it up and take it back to Wal-Mart. You'll thank yourself for it and I will too. ” — Freakofnurture 05:25, Feb. 14, 2007 (UTC)

It could be said that the same is happening here... --Dragon695 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't start another bot war please. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the operator of said bot. First, the WP:NFCC has community consensus, if you disagree take it there. Second, automated enforcement of WP:NFCC has community consensus. Third, my bot (and two others) have community consensus having passed a WP:BRFA with no objections. Sorry but this isn't how we operate, if you have a problem with the policy, the enforcement methods or the bot's approved method of action they're the appropriate venues for discussion. The bot is clearly not malfunctioning and calling for a block because you think the policy is flawed is baseless. BJ^Talk 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree, this bot is operating 100% correctly and enforcing policy properly. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've objected to past issues with bots, but this one was fine and was performing correctly - we do not link fair use from userspace. That's not a new requirement. What I suggest doing is waiting till it is in mainspace before plugging in the images or media. Orderinchaos 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am marking this as resolved. If people have an issue with WP:NFCC and/or the bot's mandate, there are other venues to discuss this. However, that has nothing to do with the ANI report. The bot is in 100% compliance with its mandate, and I took the time personally to explain to the user what the bot was doing and why, and what he could do to continue his work in a way that was in compliance with WP:NFCC. Nothing more to see here. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded Harassment by User:Odd nature (and endorsed by User:Filll)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – mostly - RFC deleted by Moreschi. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Odd nature has posted a bogus RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B on a whole range of users they disagree with. He's labelled me a "supporter" of the subjects of the RFC, among a few other editors, and insists that the entire group "steer clear of participating in discussions regarding members of the project occurring anywhere on Wikipedia". He's also labelled Cla68, LaraLove (LaraHate at WikipediaReview), Giggy, Dtobias (Dan T), The undertow, ThuranX, and Gnixon in the same manner.

I'm uninvolved and have participated as a third party in several disputes (whether it be here, or at WQA), and at ANI, I repeatedly requested him to stop making unfounded accusations against me as being involved in the several disputes I have commented on. This behavior has clearly not stopped and he continues making such unsupported accusations, now with a RFC in WP:POINT. This further seen by the unacceptable manner in which he tried to have it certified - as if it is one dispute, when in reality, all he's done is referred to several disputes with several different users.

This is atrocious.

I request

• The users be informed of this discussion.
• User:Odd nature is blocked for disruption, harassment/personal attacks and using Wikipedia as a battleground.
• The RFC be deleted.

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that unsupported accusations are a perennial problem with Odd nature et all, Ncmvocalist, I tend to think that A) This would best be served as evidence IN that Request for Comment (I would like to see it more neutrally named, mind you), rather then in a seperate ANI report. And B)As for the legalities of it, as long as it serves to focus on the issue, I think a bit of WP:IAR should be used here to let it run. ArbCom has stated they want an RfC on the issue, and everyone knows if the issues aren't resolved at the RfC level, it's probably time to bring it back in front of ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The reason this is here is because this conduct has not, and will not change until there is admin intervention against this user in particular. Unsupported unwarranted accusations against third parties is purely harassment, particularly when they're repeated as a smear campaign. An RFC is to make claims with evidence against parties of a dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How fun. I come here to notify on another Colbert incident incipient on wikipedia, and find my name in the thread above it. I'm not sure why I'm included in this based on a few comments about bad behavior and the willing impotence of admins when confronted with it. ThuranX (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it but I was also concerned about pages such as User:Filll/Abuse_of_Civil_Hall_of_Fame -such pages recording the abuses of others and commenting upon them are quite often deleted. Sticky Parkin 12:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

MfD'd Viridae^Talk 12:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame is not meant to insult or offend anyone. It is data about how we are applying policy like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Are we doing so consistently? Does our approach make sense? Are our standards for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA at the appropriate level? Should they be more stringent or more lenient? Are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA ever used inappropriately as weapons against opponents in disputes? These are just examples I have come across in my travels, and not meant to be exhaustive or an appropriately random sample.

I do not pretend to know if Wikipedia is enforcing WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL appropriately at the moment or not. I do not pretend to know if the most commonly held assumptions about CIVIL are reasonable or not. However, these are interesting questions to consider as Wikipedia evolves as an enterprise.

If we are ever to move beyond our current "intuition-based management" of Wikipedia, based on gut feelings and on who can be the biggest bully or who can scream the loudest, to "evidence-based management" we need data, and we need to analyze it. We need to understand what our current stance on a given issue is, and what it was, and how it is changing and why. We need to frame our policies and enforcement in terms of our actual goals, and then try to determine the best means to reach these goals, and then implement these means if possible. And that is what the CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame is. It is a tiny step on the road towards "evidence-based management". --Filll (talk | wpc) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The instructions for the RFC at the top of the page say, "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." Since it is unquestionably impossible for this RFC to be certified (there is not a single dispute with a single user for anyone to certify), the RFC should be deleted (or courtesy blanked, if it is needed for arbitration evidence). --B (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this would fall under ignoring all rules. People have good faith concerns, and should be allowed to address them. They should not be deleted on some technical wikilawyering. If the substance of the request for comment is the concern, then the evidence should show that, and it can be closed as unsubstantiated, but not on some small procedural rule. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes rules are there for a good reason and this is one of those cases. An RFC is not for launching complaints at a group of people and then seeing what sticks. Virtually all of the complaints in there have nothing whatsoever to do with me. Even where Odd Nature makes statements in his description of the dispute that all four of us did something, he provides no evidence of me doing it - it's just a false accusation. The one and only complaint that does have anything to do with me is that I have presented evidence of abuse of the administrative tools by Felonious Monk. This is nothing but retaliation for my daring to offer arbitration evidence. There is no campaign of harassment on my part, rather, it is the correct response to an abuse of the administrative tools. Unlike some of the other presentations at the arbitration case in question, mine was brief, contains only recent material (who cares if someone cursed 3 years ago), and contains only the clearest of examples. This is not harassment and if anyone considers the actions that I documented or this RFC as a response to be an acceptable behavior, there really isn't any point of agreement from which to have a discussion. --B (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment RfCs are for dispute resolution not for airing of grievances (as B puts it), not for compiling loosely connected evidence, and not for investigations of off-wiki activity. That type of RfC discredits the process and its use in future dispute resolution attempts--Cailil ^talk 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC nuked. First, the diffs that purported to show attempts to resolve the dispute were unbelievably tenuous, and secondly, we don't do RFCs on a random group of users. Individual RFCS on individual people would be fine, and a big RFC on the topic of intelligent design would also be great, as ArbCom requested. Maybe you could even model that on the RFCs we have now and again on RFA. But not this way. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design and would appreciate drafing help. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that, this looks like it will try to work towards a resolution of the dispute--Cailil ^talk 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I third.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't, I wish that the now deleted RfC had been merged to the THIRD RfC "Bite at the apple". Making the community post AGAIN seems problematic. SirFozzie (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:SmartBoy222

Resolved

 – User blocked indef; all deproded articles have been dealt with

User SmartBoy222 (talk · contribs) has made no contributions other than to remove prod templates from articles. According to policy I'm not supposed to restore these, but is this sort of editing considered vandalism? BradV 15:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

His latest contribs though are a number of page move vandalisms, sent to WP:AIV. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Looks like some of his/her contributions got deleted, and then turned to vandalism. I would restore the prods as removed in bad faith. Pastordavid (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The prod removal was obviously just to get his edit count up and were not done in good faith, I've reverted them. Any good user can recheck them. This is the UK grawp groupie, no other open accounts on that IP. Thatcher 15:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I speedied a bunch of the prods as they were rubbish - a couple of the prods he removed were actually justifiably removed, though, so someone may want to go through them as Thatcher suggests. Neıl 龱 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked the user's contribs and all the prods have either been restored or else the article is already deleted (or, in a couple cases, the prods were restored but then removed by others as contested or out of process). I have marked as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

AN/I semiprotected

I have indefinitely semiprotected this page, anyone may bump it back down to just move protection at their discretion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ehh I don't think it was really necessary for an indefinite coming from 2 apparent GRAWP socks. Maybe 24 hours :). Just my input =D<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, I just left the expiration as "indefinite" so the move protection wouldn't be accidentally removed. I don't expect semiprotection to be necessary for more than a few hours. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd've blocked the IPs AO ACB three months apiece. These aren't Grawp; these are 4channers, and I wouldn't be surprised if these guys are just "following orders" left by Grawp on /b/. Here's a hint: Grawp registers and signs in. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 07:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ehh I don't understand the whole story about Grawp, I just presume stretched anus' are him. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawp has imitators, but even his imitators register/sign in. 4channers do not because of their preference for "anonymity". -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 07:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Any idea how he's did the stuff up at the allegations of israeli apartheid above? I've looked at the diffs but I can't find an easy way to fix it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism: {{u}}. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 07:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just found it. Could someone please protect that like the other user templates are? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I will; I just blocked the IP. I'll also remove that revision; this looks like 4chan vandalism again as it all appears to be the same damn edit, with the PAGENAME parameter added. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 07:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Edit deleted, IP blocked for a quarter, page protected as high-risk. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 07:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Not everyone who visits 4chan is like this... Sigh. :( Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I know; I have two channers as friends RL. As a side note, we need admins at User talk:Persian Poet Gal; she's been under attack, and I've blocked a few 4channer IPs for three months there because the wethers are following the shepherd off a cliff overlooking the Columbia River. Likewise, I would like some eyes on my talk page; I'm also a frequent target. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 07:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Archilles last stand and related IP's

Resolved

 – Blocked for a month by Neil. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Master account:

• Archilles last stand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP's he uses to avoid 3RR & other conduct policies:

• 124.168.36.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.49.14.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Related articles:

• Scott McClellan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Justin Raimondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other relevant pages:

• User talk:Blaxthos (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Since joining the community less than a month ago, this account has caused nothing but trouble (see contributions, edit summaries, and his talk page. He's consistently inserted POV, and in some cases outright libelous statements, on several biographies of living persons. Seems to have no understanding of (or desire to understand) some very important concepts, including WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and what constitutes vandalism. They've hurled several bogus sounding "warnings", and have continued to behave disruptively after being warned multiple times (and reversions being explained on associated talk pages). Not sure where to go from here... any advice or help would be appreciated. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was about to do the same; he's back to his original behaviour; including POV pushing and using Scott Stevens (weatherman) as a discussion page, after I asked him to stop). Previous discussion was archived Incident archive 425 --Blowdart | ^talk 10:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. It would have been shorter, but he was already using the IPs to edit-war and avoid 3RR (obvious, as he had been caught up in autoblocks). Neıl 龱 12:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin in breach of 3RR and abusing admin privileges

Resolved

 – Edokter admitted he probably shouldn't have protected the page, but no harm was done and there is really nothing else to see here

USer:Edokter is in the process of edit warring over the images Image:TARDIS-trans.png and Image:TARDIS.jpg he has now breached the WP:3RR, and used his admin powers to protect his prefered version of the page. I would appreciate if someone would look into the appropriateness of his behaviour Fasach Nua (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Complainant seems not to understand the issue of tagging on Commons; perhaps someone should explain it more clearly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Oh look—you're both edit warring. Perhaps you should give us a bit more context to work with here, including an explanation of why you (Fasach Nua) shouldn't also be blocked for edit warring. (3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement, blah blah blah.) For some reason I get the sense that this is a small part of a larger dispute; I do hope that no one is trying to game the system here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. It turns out that you've explicitly admitted to trying to game the system: [2]. Gloating about reaching 3RR – "...You have reached you three reversions in the 24 hours, so I will expect the image to be left as is!" – isn't cool. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Edokter looks to be in the right here, but probably still shouldn't have used his admin tools like this, and neither user has particularly covered themselves in glory. I have unprotected the articles given that this conversation should probably prevent any more edit-warring. Black Kite 13:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I shouldn't have protected the local pages. On the other hand, I did tag the images on Commons as Fasach has been told to do numorous times, so he should be happy. — Edokter • Talk • 14:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You cruel, abusive, inhumane bastard! Not only did you make the edit that Fasach was trying to make, you went and made it in the correct place, and you did it twelve minutes before he filed the complaint about you. Apparently, the most serious defect in your conduct was that you protected the image page here in an – apparently futile – attempt to keep Fasach from continuing to shoot himself in the foot. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You sir, are out of order. I am not, I repeat, not inhumane! — Edokter • Talk • 15:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Edokter has implicitly admitted to being a cruel, abusive (but not inhumane!) bastard, I am being bold and marking this as resolved ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Fawn_Lake

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by R. Baley

Adminstrative attention would be helpful. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't agree more. Wiki-stalking another editor's edits is unhelpful. - Fawn Lake (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Poupon, what specific concern do you have? My assumption is that you removed those two items because they lacked sources, but - as I don't see a message to Fawn Lake explaining that - Could you confirm? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fawn Lake is MyWikiBiz. Comcast + wikipedia internals + poker. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Poupon, you have some proof? Is this meant as a joke? You reverted his edits without an edit summary explaining why. Bstone (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand behind my statement. A cursory review of the users editing history by individuals familiar with the MO would be more than enough. Edits by banned users are revertable on sight. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is either Kohs, or someone trying to impersonate him, look at the first edit to his user page. Clearly warrants following his edits around and reverting at whim. R. Baley (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Update, I've indef'd the account, so unless new info come to light. . . R. Baley (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Strongbrow (talk · contribs) moved this article to Israeli and the apartheid analogy which is a controversial page move particularly since the original article is under AfD and a page move is being discussed as a possible option but the option does not yet have consensus. The move was made entirely without discussion and should have been a requested page move rather than made by her/his self. --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Strongbrow (talk · contribs), not Strongbow made the move. --Onorem♠Dil 16:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was reading over the discussion and it looked like there was general agreement that the old title sucked and I thought this new title was more neutral. I'm still new at this so I'm sorry if I acted incorrectly but let's see what people think of the new title. I'm not going to edit war over it but I really do think it'll be acceptable to both sides. Strongbrow (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As I just posted on the article talk page, renaming just for the sake of renaming was a poor choice to make in this case. Discussion about what to move it to, if anywhere at all, should precede a rename. Not the other way around. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, I would suggest that you take controversial page moves to WP:RM next time. --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry for getting it wrong - just trying to help. I tried to move it back and can't - hopefully there will be a consensus to keep the change. Strongbrow (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Placed a CSD G6 tag on the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please move it back without messing up the edit history? There's enough move history on this article (it started as Israeli apartheid years ago) that cleaning this up is hard. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, somebody did that. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, looks like the article page was moved back but the talk page wasn't. Now the article and talk are out of sync, and there's a double redirect on the talk page. --John Nagle (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, I moved the talk page back. Please post if I screwed up somehow. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

user:AvantVenger will need a close eye and/or a longer block

AvantVenger (talk · contribs)

See user's response to being blocked for gross incivility. (And I'm talking gross incivility, e.g. after having a relatively polite Wikiquette alert filed regarding him, his first comment at the WQA ended with "you can all go to HELL!") Maybe he just needs to cool down, but either this block needs extended, or somebody needs to be waiting tomorrow at 08:34 to make sure he is actually calmed down. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of laying on more heat, I left a friendly note with some links. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If it comes down to a re-block, we can cross that bridge when we get there; for the time being, I believe de-escalation seems more appropriate. It's difficult for some users to quickly get into the "wiki way," but we should do what we can to nudge those users along. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, no de-escalation will be helpful here. I now believe that AvantVenger is the real-world person Charles Collins <[email removed -LS]> - who appears to be the indefinitely-banned User:Fraberj. My evidence is here User_talk:AvantVenger#Is_AvantVenger_really_Charles_Collins.3F. SteveBaker (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

His/her response to Gwen Gale's helpful note... It starts off promising enough, but the last several K do not exactly demonstrate a desire to contribute constructively ;) This was after several hours to cool down.

Not for nothing, but if a person is responding to multiple warnings in a row with capital letter obscenities, as AvantVenger did yesterday prior to his/her block, I think the problems are a little more serious than just "nudging" them towards the "wiki way" ;) I'm fine with close monitoring with no prejudice for or against a future block purely as a matter of principle, but realistically we have to recognize that de-escalation is incredibly unlikely to succeed. In my mind, the main reason not to block now is because the user might just go away on their own, on then we avoid giving the impression that Wikipedia is ruled with an iron fist. :) --Jaysweet (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As you say, there's only so far we can "nudge" someone. ;) I noticed they seemed to calm down significantly, last night, after I made a brief attempt at listening rather than chiding... but then I see we're back at full blast, today. I had previously wondered if the user might be a sockpuppet or somehow personally involved in the off-wiki dispute; Steve's post lends credence to both possibilities. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Geez, when someone gets blocked for breaking a policy then they keep doing the same thing then we extend the block. This whole idea that extending a block when someone is uncivil in reaction to a block is somehow unhelpful makes the unreasonable assumption that the point of the block is to help the person. It is not, it is to prevent them from continuing the disruptive behavior.

If someone gets nasty when blocked, then warn then, if they get nastier, then extend the block. If that makes them even nastier("YOU ARE THIEVES! YOU ARE PIGS!(repeat 20x)") then perhaps they should not be here. We coddle people who act nasty around here, thinking if we hold their hands they will suddenly reform. More often than they reform they just make life harder on people. I have seen more people give up chronic incivility in the face of ever increasing blocks than I ever had with hand holding and putting up with violations. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to give behavioral therapy. _{1 != 2} 13:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I believe their block is expired now, so maybe they just want away.

For the record, I am pretty sure that in my time on Wikipedia, I have still never asked for a block or extension of a block on a user where it didn't eventually happen (on a few rare occasions, such as this one, a "let's-wait-and-see" approach was taken, but it still resulted in a block). Let's see if I keep my perfect track record! ;) ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. The let's wait and see approach most often yields "more of the same". _{1 != 2} 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, he's back. From today:

• "Go back under your rock where you belong and stay there with the rest of you stinking putrid liberals.", "Nefarious cowards!"
• More conspiracy allegations ("Who are you working for?")
• Another "go to hell",

I mean, it could be worse, he at least seems to be making some attempt at dialog, at least most of the time (despite edit summaries like [this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-replicating_machine&diff=prev&oldid=218628917]). Normally I would try to address this at WP:WQA, but his response there was "GO TO HELL", so I am not optimistic. If that's what people feel should be done, though, I'll volunteer to do it. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

More of the same, who could have guessed. Oh and you missed "nefarious cowards!". I think you should just go ahead Jay, clearly not blocking this person isn't solving the problem, so blocking is really all that is left. _{1 != 2} 14:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1 == 2, me != admin :) Anyway, EyeSerene (talk · contribs) appears to be on the case, so I am inclined to let him/her deal with it as he/she sees fit. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were. _{1 != 2} 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's really clear that the more you look into the past posts and behavior of User:Fraberj that he and User:AvantVenger are the same person. Fraberj has an indefinite ban - AvantVenger is simply a sock and should get the exact same treatment. I've filed a complaint at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (2nd). Can we please just stick an indefinite ban on AvantVenger and get on with writing an encyclopedia? SteveBaker (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, between the incivility, the soap boxing, and sock puppetry to push a point of view, and the fact that he is evading a block all points to the need to block this fellow again. _{1 != 2} 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just got online for today, reviewed the happenings I missed, and took a longer few moments to review the evidence presented at Steve's SSP case; currently I've blocked AvantVenger indefinitely. Any objection? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Only that you are a putrid liberal, a nefarious coward, and a patent thief. ;p But no, I cannot imagine any positive contributions coming from this user in the future. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Zachary Jaydon

Clarification : primary problem is at The Mickey Mouse Club, not Zachary Jaydon itself.Kww (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm here to seek input about what steps are appropriate. User:TragedyStriker (whose signature reads "Skyler Morgan", so don't get confused by that) has a pretty single-minded contribution history: the inclusion of every detail of Zachary Jaydon's career in Wikipedia. He has been accused more than once of including details of Jaydon's career that are counter-factual, specifically the claim that Zachary Jaydon was a cast member on The Mickey Mouse Club, a claim he has been making for nearly a year. Editors of the article have consulted two works that claim to provide a complete list, The Wonderful World of Disney Television: A Complete History, by Bill Cotter. New York: Hyperion (1997) and Disney A to Z: The Updated Official Encyclopedia, Dave Smith, Hyperion, ISBN 0-7868-6391-9, and have found no Zachary Jaydon. Editors have scanned the credits of the YouTube copyright violations, and found no trace of Jaydon in the credits. The only sources that list Jaydon on the MMC are IMDB and another "edited by user contribution" site.
After a lull of several weeks, TragedyStriker included the following:

• [[Zachary Jaydon]] (Seasons 1-7)<ref>Stevens, K: "The ALL-NEW Mickey Mouse Club!", pages 33-36. The Disney Channel Magazine, April, 1989</ref><ref>Venable, B: "MMC Rocks The Planet", pages 16-17. The Disney Channel Magazine, June-July, 1992</ref><ref>Stanza, M: "MMC, The Album", pages 14-19. The Disney Channel Magazine, May, 1993</ref>

A nice set of paper references, but, unfortunately, nearly impossible to verify. I live on a Dutch-speaking island in South America, so our local library hasn't been eager to stock house magazines from American cable children's networks. I've put out requests for people to look it up via e-mails to editors on the article, postings on the reliable sources noticeboard, and the talk-page for the article. So far, no one has been able to physically obtain a copy of this information to validate it. Accordingly, User:Saratoga Sam,User:C.Fred, and myself have been reverting this information, until someone can physically validate this source or TragedyStriker can pony up some credible scans. TragedyStriker has been blocked once for 3RR for this, and socks seem to be involved as well (sadly enough, on both sides of the debate: this, this and this seem suspicious, but here we have an editor with one edit created two minutes before that one edit, and he is removing Zachary).
So, my real question ... what's appropriate behaviour in a situation like this? If Tragedy never comes up with the scans, and no one ever finds a copy of this magazine, can we just keep blocking the addition of the information? Or do others think that our supply of good faith should come in larger bottles?
Kww (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a blog post out there that I won't link to with a lot of allegations about Mr. Jaydon which indicates that he also goes by the name of Skyler Morgan (you can find the blog posting if you Google Mr. Jaydon's name). I am not making any claims one way or the other, but the blog posting is worth reading if anyone wants to delve into this. Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also worthing noting that there was already a consensus deletion of this article: [[3]]. Corvus cornix_talk 23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That was overridden in the second deletion review. Most people don't deny the existence of Zachary Jaydon, and his verifiable accomplishments can be seen as sufficient to warrant an article.Kww (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a problem - I don't find a single mention of a "Zachary Jaydon" in any of the references provided ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. IMDB is not a reliable source, as it is created by submission (and this ref uses the IMDB list as its source, and still only lists Z Jaydon as an "uncredited extra"). The only references on the entire list of article references that actually mention Zachary Jaydon are his own MySpace site, and IMDB (which is unreferenced). And not even these mention his puprorted "writing of songs that have sold over 30 million copies worldwide". I have a very strong feeling we have being BS'd by a hoaxer/self-publicist/fraud, and a bunch of people at AFD have fallen for it. Nominated for AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Jaydon (3rd nomination) Neıl 龱 14:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the fence as to whether we are discussing existence fraud or resume inflation, but the listed birth name in the article is "Jaydon D. Paull", and the ASCAP source does validate work being done under that name.
Kww (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, this - of the three songs on that list that were "recorded" by notable artists, we'll pick one as an example. "Be There", as an example, is listed as being released by NSync. I can't find any song they ever released entitled "Be There". The reference given in the article for this has no mention of such a song. They did have a B-side on called "Are You Gonna Be There" on No Strings Attached ('N Sync album), but this Google search is telling: [11]. Neıl 龱 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Following a lot of hunting around by various people, it's looking like a blatant hoax, and the AFD is fast snowballing towards a delete. Neıl 龱 20:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Steven Greer's page

Resolved

The admins have just closed an AFD(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steven_M._Greer) as keep on his(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_M._Greer) Wikipedia page. Ignoring this decision 129.138.90.90 (talk)- who is a known vandal - deleted and redirected the page. Would you please undo this edit and restore the original version after the afd? Thanks in advance. I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. There was no consensus for a redirect on either the talk page of the article or the AfD discussion. BradV 18:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved further discussion to editor's talk page --Jaysweet (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oversight needed

Resolved

This (link redacted) edit seems to contain a person's real name, location and phone number. Somehow this has slipped by for almost 2 years. Request this edit be oversighted. Angrymansr (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! I have sent the link in question to the e-mail address specified at Requests for Oversight, and I redacted the link above.

In the future, for links that need oversight, it is better to send them directly to WP:RFO rather than post here, because posting the diff here has the unfortunate effect of increasing the visibility of the edit in question :)

Why do I know this? Because I made the same damn mistake a couple weeks ago :D Thanks again for the good catch! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the talk page as it was the single edit on the page (other than your blanking) and not constructive to encyclopedia building. Not sure if oversight is necessary in this case, but we've already emailed for it, so... (Was it?) xenocidic (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they got back to me in under 3 minutes -- and I know my company's e-mail is laggy, so it was probably even less than that. That's service!

Marking as resolved. Thanks againg Angrymansr! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action and the advice on where to send oversight requests. Angrymansr (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Radiolbx

As another user has previously removed my personal attack warning on his talkpage, can someone please chat with User:Radiolbx regarding comments such as these [12] & [13]. Thanks JPG-GR (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Radiolbx is within their right to remove the warnings off their talk page Interesting to see that another editor removed the warnings butI don't know if they can remove warnings on another editor's talkpage but still Radiolbx has no right to attack you for what ever reason. Bidgee (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of his right to remove the warnings on their talk page... but they weren't the one to do so. I would appreciate some admin intervention as I worry that any future warnings I may post will just be once again removed by the other user (User:Milonica).

The issue here was that they were being removed by a different editor. I've left notes for both of them, and suggested that if they feel it's important to pursue this issue, they take it to dispute resolution. I'll take a longer look when I have the opportunity. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you comment by Milonica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) could be assuming bad faith to JPG-GR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to say that they have them on a hitlist and also threatening to report if they (JPG-GR) post another personal attack warning. Bidgee (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith with JPG-GR. I didn't know that the comment in question existed above. When I said I'm with you, I was referring to another issue, which has nothing to do with this one. I apologize for removing the warning, I sincerely thought it was for another issue, which is between JPG-GR and I, not radio. Milonica (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

Just FYI, I wanted to mention that based on this discussion some users have been deleting placeholder images eventhough there was no consensus. I have already noticed 2 and I am sure there are plenty more.--Kumioko (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it the school holidays?

There has been some disruptive, childish, and possibly libellous editing by a group of users who would appear to be either friends at the same school or sockpuppets to articles such as Horsforth School, St Margarets Primary School, Limbo (dance). The users are primarily: Canpop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Hardguy999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), McSaucePaste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Coolguy911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Farsleyceltic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The users leedsunited325 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and farsleyceltic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also appear to be associated but have vandalised less. Could someone keep an eye on these and revert/block as appropriate? Thanks, DWaterson (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, summertime. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Dreamer.se

This user has persistently engaged in fair use violations together with the good image uploads. His response has been to blank his talk page. Importantly, I gave this user a last warning at his sockpuppet username (User talk:12345blake, though the diff is obnoxiously deleted, and which username was blocked indefinitely for vandalism). I ask and beg to community to enforce the standards of policy, which he has flouted ever since creating an account. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Outing on my userpage

Hi,

I wanted to listen fully to a user who was critical of Baggini. This editor seems to now have more against SlimVirgin that the subject of the article. I assumed good faith and was kind to this editor, but he is now postings about speculations about SV's real life identity. I was aware of these speculations before, but I don't want them on my talk page.

I'm asking admin actions, and perhaps these things to be over-sighted from my userpage, if possible. I feel little inclined to continue discuss the topic with this editor now. I would appreciate if someone not involved with SlimVirgin took care of this as there are accusations of cabalism, etc.

Thank you, Merzul (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I EC'd with SlimVirgin in deleting the talk page to remove the revision. The user in question, Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs), was indefblocked by SlimVirgin. While I concur wholeheartedly with the block, it may have been better for SV to wait for an uninvolved admin to handle it. That said, I agree with and second her actions in this matter. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume someone has requested oversight; if no, I'll handle it in a bit. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While not a fan of involved blockers or indef's, the user in question seemed to have earned this the old fashioned way (repeated poor behavior). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no need for SV to wait for an uninvolved admin - wholly appropriate to indef block Wikigiraffes for that. Neıl 龱 09:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This was an obviously appropriate block, no waiting necessary. GlassCobra 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Georgian article vandal

Resolved

A vandal with the IP 68.81.195.69 is daily vandalizing articles having to do with Georgia. He or she is changes mostly speaker counts or inhabitant numbers, sometimes only slightly, without giving a source. I've had quite an edit&revert war with him, as I thought after some time he'd stop anyway. He didn't. That person is getting very annoying, so I hope someone can block him now. Thanks! — N-true (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He has not edited past your final warning (at 23:17 UTC on 10 June). Let us know if he does so. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed he did now, as expected. He vandalized again the Georgian language article and also messed up another article about a Brasilian football player or something like that. I reverted both. Enough to block him now? — N-true (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, he is now blocked for one week, since he is deliberately introducing subtle errors to articles, and he won't respond on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please block User talk:142.192.200.200 for page blanking

Resolved

 – user blocked Toddst1 (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear admins, I kindly request the long-term block of IP 142.192.200.200. This IP is registered to NCO Group, a US collection agency. The IP has been blanking large parts of the article. 3 years of warnings have done nothing to curtail this vandalism/page blanking. Thus, I turn to the administrators for further assistance. Bstone (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy action, Toddst1!!!! Bstone (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Network" vandalism

Has anyone else come across this rubbish? Vandalism from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and possibly others,[14] all with edit summaries crapping on about how "The Network knows all", "The Network is watching you", etc. One such edit seems to be claiming that this is coordinated vandalism by Tau Kappa Epsilon,[15] but I'm inclined to believe it is just one wanker working through open proxies. Does anyone want to do a proxy check? Hesperian 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In my time here that is not something that has ever popped up. I think it should be added to the watch out list. By the way. I love the comment here. Best laugh I got all day. Rgoodermote  00:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be the same mob at Talk:The Brady Bunch#Jeopardy! trivia. Hesperian 01:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See this archived item from WP:ANI for more info, and this abuse report that was rejected after what was probably only a cursory look. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably time to re-do that abuse report then. Thanks for those by the way. Rgoodermote  02:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Thamarih is back …

… this time with threats on top of personal attacks. He's taken repeated escalating blocks. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning as well--one more legal threat or personal attack and they're blocked. Given the look of their talk page, it may be pushing WP:AGF a little to think that it might stick this time, but seeing as how they've made it a couple of weeks without being blocked already I support giving them a chance to demonstrate that this was simply a slip-up by someone who's trying to do better. --jonny-mt 03:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

More Sportsbook.com headaches

Resolved

1. (Deletion log); 02:01 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Sportsbook.c0m" (content was: '#REDIRECT Talk:Sportsbook.com' and the only contributor was Persian Poet Gal)
2. (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Sportsbook.com‎; 02:01 . . (+15,904) . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) (and bingo)
3. (Move log); 02:01 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Sportsbook.c0m to Talk:Sportsbook.com (fix)
4. (Deletion log); 02:01 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Sportsbook.com" (content was: '3154164756188460809363030286645451701265196562623238703163237107951353874490069346209438629475170296 6362361422994450686916698686600279039593446893432936551204206347823658766440668754025307664209877402 09696099459832925057839282835708425...')
5. (Deletion log); 02:00 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) restored "Talk:Sportsbook.c0m" (45 revisions restored: real talk page)
6. (Deletion log); 02:00 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sportsbook.c0m" (content was: '#REDIRECT Sportsbook.com' and the only contributor was Persian Poet Gal)
7. (diff) (hist) . . m Sportsbook.com‎; 02:00 . . (+2,363) . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) (and bingo)
8. (Move log); 01:59 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) moved Sportsbook.c0m to Sportsbook.com (fix)
9. (Deletion log); 01:59 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sportsbook.com" (restored wrong page)
10. (Deletion log); 01:59 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) restored "Sportsbook.c0m" (168 revisions restored: actual page)
11. (Deletion log); 01:56 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Sportsbook.c0m" (CSD G8 - talk page of a deleted page)
12. (Deletion log); 01:56 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sportsbook.c0m" (content was: '#redirect Sportsbook.com')
13. (Deletion log); 01:55 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Sp0rtsb00k.c0m" (content was: '#REDIRECT Talk:Sportsbook.com' and the only contributor was 2005)
14. (Deletion log); 01:55 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "DRAGNET.TV" (content was: '#REDIRECT Sportsbook.com' and the only contributor was Persian Poet Gal)
15. (Deletion log); 01:55 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:STEVE JOBS" (content was: '#REDIRECT Talk:Sportsbook.com' and the only contributor was Persian Poet Gal)
16. (Deletion log); 01:55 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sp0rtsb00k.c0m" (content was: '#REDIRECT Sportsbook.com')
17. (Move log); 01:55 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) moved DRAGNET.TV to Sportsbook.com (revert)
18. (Deletion log); 01:55 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sportsbook.com" (content before blanking was: '#REDIRECT DRAGNET.TV')
19. (Move log); 01:54 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:STEVE JOBS to Talk:Sportsbook.com over redirect (revert)
20. (Move log); 01:53 . . Fadeintoyou (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Sportsbook.com to Talk:STEVE JOBS
21. (Move log); 01:50 . . Fadeintoyou (Talk | contribs) moved Sportsbook.com to DRAGNET.TV
22. (Move log); 01:40 . . 2005 (Talk | contribs) moved Sp0rtsb00k.c0m to Sportsbook.com over redirect
23. (Move log); 01:40 . . 2005 (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Sp0rtsb00k.c0m to Talk:Sportsbook.com over redirect
24. (Move log); 01:39 . . 2005 (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Sp0rtsb00k.c0m to Talk:Sportsbook.c0m
25. (Move log); 01:39 . . 2005 (Talk | contribs) moved Sp0rtsb00k.c0m to Sportsbook.c0m

Suggest that large cluestick be applied to 2005 (talk · contribs) and Fadeintoyou (talk · contribs) for general disruption. Persian Poet Gal (talk · contribs), who cleaned up the mess, should be encouraged to apply for adminship. And we really need a semi-automated tool for cleaning up bogus moves. --John Nagle (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, guess what, PPG is an admin, or else she wouldn't be able to delete the pages seen in that log you just posted. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with any of the above, except Fade's obvious vandalism, for which he/she was warned. 2005's moves were valid. PPG is an admin, as was pointed out. Do your homework. Tan | 39 04:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Then what was "(Move log); 01:40 . . 2005 (Talk | contribs) moved Sp0rtsb00k.c0m to Sportsbook.com over redirect" supposed to be for? Was 2005 (talk · contribs) breaking something or fixing something? When doing weird moves, edit comments would be helpful. --John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, looked back further, found the vandalism by Fadeintoyou (talk · contribs) that 2005 (talk · contribs) was fixing. Thanks to everyone who cleaned up the mess. --John Nagle (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Solomon Trujillo - legal issues, and media coverage

There's some media coverage of this story at the moment, and I think that that link, and this one should be posted to the article talk page to give further info to any passing editors. Foundation legal counsel clearly seem to be informed. I am unable to do so currently, and it's good to get second through tenth opinions regardless... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A sensible decision. I'd suggest pre-empting the normal 'new at bottom' sectioning and put it at the top, for new editors to find, with a heading making it clear that this is pertinent BLP relevant information and 'mandatory' reading for all editors. Link the BLP policies there as well, and make a 'pelase do not archive note as well. ThuranX (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats on my Wiki? No way. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But we're not addressing the Legal Threats, we're discussing how best to make sure that editors act in an especially responsible manner while the foundation sorts things out. We don't need to leave new editors blind to the situation. It might also be worth it to use a hidden comment at the top of each section directing new editors to read that section before editing. ThuranX (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what office actions are for. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So you oppose PM's idea because you'd rather wait for someone else to handle it? ThuranX (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the idea because of WP:NLT. If the Foundation actually needs to take some sort of temporary measure while it sorts this issue out, then they'll do that. We don't need to second guess them. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Apathy then. I'm going to say it. You're wrong. There's NO reason to not notify editors that there is an ongoing concern about the article, and care should be taken when editing it. No one's suggested making a Legal Threat there, nor is the fact that a legal action has been filed the same as a threat. these people followed through. Taking those facts, not threats, to the editors and saying "hey, look at this before editing, and be sure that anything you want to do can be supported, because we don't need more trouble" isn't making a legal threat, it's protecting the project and warning them that things are going on. ThuranX (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wrong at all. PM's suggestion was to put links to the legal threats on the talk page, plain and simple. It creates intimidation and a chilling effect. My suggestion, on the other hand, is to handle this as a sensitive BLP issue. Huh. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

For those of you playing along at home: March 7 letter, see also. Daniel (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This man is threating to sue the project if an anon user isn't blocked? does he know that IP addresses change constantly? has the foundation expressed anything about it? - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nogt the topic of this section, and not for us to comment on. Let his lawyer and the foundation has hit out. Let's focus on PM's suggestion that we make it readily available on the article talk that a BLP situation exists and caution is needed on that page.ThuranX (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't pay the legal threats any mind. Increase protection of the article, maybe. Put a bigger notice about BLP, maybe. But the legal threat itself shouldn't be there. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So, though if PM does it now, we can try to avoid stacking up the troubles with new problem edits, you instead prefer we ignore it and wait around until the office deals with it, and if in the intervening time, moer bad edits are made, then that's not our problem, because we're not the office? Doesn't this go against all the recent discussions about the community being responsible? ThuranX (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny, that's not what I wrote at all. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is. You said, do nothing and ignore it because others will do it. ThuranX (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Still, this can set a very negative precedent, completely ignoring it doesn't seem prudent. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To Thuran: Bullshit. " Increase protection of the article, maybe. Put a bigger notice about BLP, maybe. ". I never said we should do nothing, I just said that linking to the legal issues wasn't a good idea. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been no issues since the initial one from my research, and to be honest I don't expect there to be. The protection was due to expire, and due to concerns, it was extended to indefinite. Since the initial problem was solved by oversight/deletion and semi-protection, there hasn't been any further problems with the article, and I can't see why there would be any more in the future (this page has been watchlisted by many who were aware of the concerns, myself included). I really don't see why any editorial action needs to be taken. If someone wants to leave a brief note with relevant links urging caution in editing on the talk page, they are free to, as they would any other edit. Daniel (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words, this is old news and not really an issue? -- Ned Scott 05:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

only 'cos it's in the papers at the mo, Ned.... if I knew how to mark this 'resolved' I would... anyone? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't sure if there was more to it or not. I find it odd they would make a news story about something from March that had no new activity, and they didn't wait for comments from either party. I figured there was something else? It's still good that you left us this notice, though, even if I didn't like the suggestion of putting the link to http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/notice.cgi?NoticeID=18099 on the talk page. I guess we could use that "in the news" template, where ever it is. It would give it a different spin, making the issue not as intimidating, but still saying "btw, this happened". Maybe I'm just thinking too hard.. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets just keep it from happening again and let Mike et al. continue to deal with this (there is a chance that this is still an active issue, a chance which we shouldn't rule out). Our job is to watchlist the article, revert and/or delete/oversight anything nasty, and maintain it to a standard which is acceptable within both the letter and spirit of our policies on living people. Let's let Mike do his job, if he still has any involvement with this, otherwise. Daniel (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

IP making disruptive, harassing comments

Resolved

 – IP blocked 31 hours for edit warring --Selket ^Talk 05:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

see Special:Contributions/74.4.179.205. Perhaps a short block? Part of a larger mess over the Saab Lofton article which I don't quite have time to try to sort out right now. The subject of the article is quite upset. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, sproted the article. Too much unsourced negative BLP from anon-users. --Selket ^Talk 06:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a night on the job

I'm drive-by blocking some disruptive users without talk page notices. Just for the record. Keegan^talk 06:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Main page FA protected

I put a one hour semiprotection on Durian, as there is obviously a collaboration offwiki to disrupt the article, and the IPs are from all around the globe. Keegan^talk 06:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Once it comes off FA, I'm deleting the vandalism. Done. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 06:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have semi'd it again for an hour due to the same thing. Black Kite 09:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick note, when protecting a main page FA becomes necessary, it is important to not set an expiry time of an hour or so. When the semiprotection expires, so does the move protection. It's best to manually remove the semiprotection (while keeping the move protection) when the coast is clear. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

AIV helper not helping

Resolved

This user [16] is vandalising, even though the block log shows that Nakon blocked indef in May. The helperbot is helpfully removing my note at WP:AIV. Kevin (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That si very odd - as soon as he was reblocked all the recent contribs dissapeared...? Viridae^Talk 10:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I re-blocked, then realized it was their user talk page they were vandalizing (which another admin deleted and salted). Too early in the morning it seems. RFPP would've been the best course of action. Marking as resolved. xenocidic (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The CAMERA lobbying effort may be on again. Maybe.

This is more of a heads-up than a request for action. Today we have three anon editors engaged in somewhat aggressive editing on some highly-contentious Israel-related articles that had been quiet for a while.

• 70.181.148.148 (talk · contribs) a/k/a Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) - started AfD #8 on Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. (This matter is covered in an incident above.)
• 24.62.5.76 (talk · contribs) - editing CAMERA to add Gabriel Ini's (CAMERA staffer and banned user Gni (talk · contribs)) comments to the press on the CAMERA/Wikipedia controversy.[17]
• 128.252.174.116 (talk · contribs) - edited If Americans Knew to insert very negative statements about organization's board members. (Many edits; see contribs.) Article now semi-protected and worst items reverted per WP:BLP.

This bears watching. CAMERA may be making another try. It could just be a coincidence, but the classic line "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action" seems relevant. --John Nagle (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this has anything to do with CAMERA in particular, but there has been a definite uptick in IPs and new / single-purpose account activity promoting a "pro-Israel" agenda on a relatively small subset of pages, esp. Muhammad al-Durrah, of late. Probably bears a little scrutiny. <eleland/talkedits> 07:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The histrionics created by the raising of the complete non-issue of the CAMERA affair has given wikipedia's alleged anti-Israel bias plenty of media coverage, which of course is going to bring more editors in to edit the way they see fit. The parties focusing on the CAMERA incident were of course subsequently going to assume conspiracies if anyone ever subsequently came near these articles for ever more. This predictable end result of taking this road with CAMERA was pointed out time and again when the issue blew up, by several level headed and impartial people, but sadly ignored. Well, you reap what you sow to be honest. Wikipedia it seems really is a battleground now. MickMacNee (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad. Once an editor registers, there's someone to talk to and talk about, the editor starts to develop a reputation, good or bad, and the usual Wikipedia processes can deal with problems as they arise. Contentious editing from anons is a headache, but can be dealt with via semi-protection, since this particular problem is confined to a small number of well-known articles. Watching for unusual anon behavior in this area is appropriate right now; that's all. --John Nagle (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with some of the other articles in the dispute, but as I'm an uninvolved admin, I've decided to take on the supervision of the Muhammad al-Durrah article. Page protection has been lifted, and I have set Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing on the talkpage. I'm having to nudge a few folks (including some "involved editor" admins) to abide by the conditions, but so far the conditions seem to be working. --Elonka 13:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor following my contributions

Resolved

 – Johnb316 is not wikistalking and has not been disruptive

Hi, I have an editor (johnb316) who's following me around to what ever page I go to and is reverting, disputing, and arguing against whatever I say. I placed a request for help on the Editor Assistance page and he even followed me there. Is there anything that can be done about a Wiki Stalker???Romans9:11 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can find is a content dispute on [Prestonwood Baptist Church]] which continued when both editors made one post each to WP:EAR. I see no pattern of wikistalking. Can you provide diffs please? --Selket ^Talk 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 19:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope this isn't considered "stalking" that i would defend myself here but this is completely bogus and is in response to an ongoing disagreement on a couple of related pages where several wiki editors happen to side with my edits/comments and it made this particular editor upset. I have nothing to hide here and the history will speak for itself along with correspondance with editors Jaysweet and Toddst1. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.Johnb316 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Note - I have changed the title of this section; stalking is a serious situation that involves threats of physical and psychological intimidation that has the potential to be actuated in real life (e.g. calls to employers or threats that include addresses). Following someone's contributions on Wikipedia does not fall into that category. Please don't use the term "stalking" when you mean someone is tracking your edits. I concur with Selket's and Jeske's read. Risker (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, "Wikistalking" is sort of an accepted term, for better or worse...

In any case, I have been in correspondence with both editors prior to the ANI being filed, and this report is meritless. Romans9:11 and Johnb316 happen to share an intense interest in the same megachurch and its pastor. There are theological disagreements regarding certain things the pastor has said, and the megachurch just recently got hit with a scandal when one of its ministers got arrested. Nobody is following anybody around, as both of them have made clear their interest in the relevant articles long before they came into conflict with each other.

Both editors should take care not to engage in edit-warring, of course. Beyond that, this is a content dispute, nothing more. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll just point out that a longtime contributor was recently blocked in part for suggesting that another editor was "stalking" his edits. Let's stop using this term. Risker (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet, come on! Johnb316 followed me to sysop Toddst's talk page, then to the Editor Assistance page and then, good grief, I knew he would...followed me here! Romans9:11 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Romans, the idea that Johnb316 "followed" you to the Administrators' noticeboard is frankly somewhat absurd. If you read the instructions at the top of this page for posting an incident report, you are supposed to notify the involved parties when you do so. You failed to do that, but Johnb316 noticed his name being mentioned anyway and decided to <gasp> defend himself. I see no problem with that whatsoever. He has every right to answer your allegations.

Similarly, on Toddst1's talk page, Johnb316 had a vested interest in that conversation as well, since it involved a content dispute over a page on which the two of you were recently edit warring.

Please do not make spurious ANI reports. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know I was supposed to notify parties involved - my bad, and thanks for letting me know. But, either johnb316 is the luckiest man on earth and just happened to notice my comments in all 3 areas, or he's wikistalking me. I'll assume for the sake of peace at this point that he's the luckiest man on earth and hope he stops. Johnb316 if you continue to be really lucky, I'll come back here with evidence. Romans9:11 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely Johnb316 looked at your contribution list, and noticed these reports, and that's why he is here. That is not Wikistalking -- particularly since you've been forum shopping your false allegations against him. If somebody were running around criticizing me, I'd check their contribution list too! In fact, just as a matter of course in understanding this dispute, I have looked at both you contribution list and Johnb316's several times today. That is not Wikistalking.

Romans, my patience with you is exhausted at this point. Please do not make any other spurious allegations against Johnb316, or you will be blocked without further notice, as per Toddst1's notice on your talk page. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet I must have offended you somehow, because, it appears that you are making personal allegations against me. I have in NO WAY been "forum shopping" and am insulted by your accusation of such. I've been trying to do the RIGHT thing and stop, what I see to be, a disruptive editor who's making it very difficult for me and others to make a contribution to Wiki. If you and Toddst don't see it that way, well o.k., perhaps I need to have better documentation next time I make a complaint. And, next time I guess I'll try and be the first one to make a complaint on the board - in my experience the first one to complain usually gets the benefit of the doubt. Again, I'm sorry if I've offended you and as I said in my last post here, I'll give Johnb316 the benefit of the doubt and not make any allegations against him without more evidence.Romans9:11 (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jaysweet. Hopefully this conversation is over and we all can get back to more important things.Johnb316 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am marking this as resolved. There is nothing to see here. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:CyrilleDunant

User seems to be quick to revert and engages in NPA violations. You can say users talk page is peppered with it. User seems to remove other peoples comments. User might need to be explained a few things. -- Cat ^chi? 10:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The CAMERA lobbying effort may be on again. Maybe.

This is more of a heads-up than a request for action. Today we have three anon editors engaged in somewhat aggressive editing on some highly-contentious Israel-related articles that had been quiet for a while.

• 70.181.148.148 (talk · contribs) a/k/a Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) - started AfD #8 on Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. (This matter is covered in an incident above.)
• 24.62.5.76 (talk · contribs) - editing CAMERA to add Gabriel Ini's (CAMERA staffer and banned user Gni (talk · contribs)) comments to the press on the CAMERA/Wikipedia controversy.[18]
• 128.252.174.116 (talk · contribs) - edited If Americans Knew to insert very negative statements about organization's board members. (Many edits; see contribs.) Article now semi-protected and worst items reverted per WP:BLP.

This bears watching. CAMERA may be making another try. It could just be a coincidence, but the classic line "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action" seems relevant. --John Nagle (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this has anything to do with CAMERA in particular, but there has been a definite uptick in IPs and new / single-purpose account activity promoting a "pro-Israel" agenda on a relatively small subset of pages, esp. Muhammad al-Durrah, of late. Probably bears a little scrutiny. <eleland/talkedits> 07:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The histrionics created by the raising of the complete non-issue of the CAMERA affair has given wikipedia's alleged anti-Israel bias plenty of media coverage, which of course is going to bring more editors in to edit the way they see fit. The parties focusing on the CAMERA incident were of course subsequently going to assume conspiracies if anyone ever subsequently came near these articles for ever more. This predictable end result of taking this road with CAMERA was pointed out time and again when the issue blew up, by several level headed and impartial people, but sadly ignored. Well, you reap what you sow to be honest. Wikipedia it seems really is a battleground now. MickMacNee (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad. Once an editor registers, there's someone to talk to and talk about, the editor starts to develop a reputation, good or bad, and the usual Wikipedia processes can deal with problems as they arise. Contentious editing from anons is a headache, but can be dealt with via semi-protection, since this particular problem is confined to a small number of well-known articles. Watching for unusual anon behavior in this area is appropriate right now; that's all. --John Nagle (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with some of the other articles in the dispute, but as I'm an uninvolved admin, I've decided to take on the supervision of the Muhammad al-Durrah article. Page protection has been lifted, and I have set Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing on the talkpage. I'm having to nudge a few folks (including some "involved editor" admins) to abide by the conditions, but so far the conditions seem to be working. --Elonka 13:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Question on SUL & blocked users

I read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton and was just curious--NOT Moulton specific, but a technical question. He's just the discussion example. So if someone is blocked on en.wikipedia, and that is their only account under that name, they can't use SUL on other WMF projects unless that project unblocks home? The "parent" project controls SUL access for the whole rest of it? If so, why would banned/unbanned status have any bearing on SUL? I'm confused. :) rootology (T) 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Your home wiki is the wiki on which you have the most edits. If your home wiki account is blocked (not banned - banned is not a technical term, rather a "legal" one, such as it is), then you cannot use SUL. I don't know if creating an account of the same name and with the same password on another Wiki and overtaking the edit count of the original account on en.Wikipedia would then change the home wiki and allow you to then use SUL (or is that WP:BEANS?). Neıl 龱 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To be more clear, you can't unify your accounts using SUL if your home wiki account is blocked. You can still edit on other wikis using your unified account if your home account is blocked following unification. Avruch^T * ^ER 14:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that we're encouraging anyone to try it out. ffm 16:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this? --Random832 (contribs) 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor following my contributions

Resolved

 – Johnb316 is not wikistalking and has not been disruptive

Hi, I have an editor (johnb316) who's following me around to what ever page I go to and is reverting, disputing, and arguing against whatever I say. I placed a request for help on the Editor Assistance page and he even followed me there. Is there anything that can be done about a Wiki Stalker???Romans9:11 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can find is a content dispute on [Prestonwood Baptist Church]] which continued when both editors made one post each to WP:EAR. I see no pattern of wikistalking. Can you provide diffs please? --Selket ^Talk 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 19:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope this isn't considered "stalking" that i would defend myself here but this is completely bogus and is in response to an ongoing disagreement on a couple of related pages where several wiki editors happen to side with my edits/comments and it made this particular editor upset. I have nothing to hide here and the history will speak for itself along with correspondance with editors Jaysweet and Toddst1. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.Johnb316 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Note - I have changed the title of this section; stalking is a serious situation that involves threats of physical and psychological intimidation that has the potential to be actuated in real life (e.g. calls to employers or threats that include addresses). Following someone's contributions on Wikipedia does not fall into that category. Please don't use the term "stalking" when you mean someone is tracking your edits. I concur with Selket's and Jeske's read. Risker (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, "Wikistalking" is sort of an accepted term, for better or worse...

In any case, I have been in correspondence with both editors prior to the ANI being filed, and this report is meritless. Romans9:11 and Johnb316 happen to share an intense interest in the same megachurch and its pastor. There are theological disagreements regarding certain things the pastor has said, and the megachurch just recently got hit with a scandal when one of its ministers got arrested. Nobody is following anybody around, as both of them have made clear their interest in the relevant articles long before they came into conflict with each other.

Both editors should take care not to engage in edit-warring, of course. Beyond that, this is a content dispute, nothing more. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll just point out that a longtime contributor was recently blocked in part for suggesting that another editor was "stalking" his edits. Let's stop using this term. Risker (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet, come on! Johnb316 followed me to sysop Toddst's talk page, then to the Editor Assistance page and then, good grief, I knew he would...followed me here! Romans9:11 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Romans, the idea that Johnb316 "followed" you to the Administrators' noticeboard is frankly somewhat absurd. If you read the instructions at the top of this page for posting an incident report, you are supposed to notify the involved parties when you do so. You failed to do that, but Johnb316 noticed his name being mentioned anyway and decided to <gasp> defend himself. I see no problem with that whatsoever. He has every right to answer your allegations.

Similarly, on Toddst1's talk page, Johnb316 had a vested interest in that conversation as well, since it involved a content dispute over a page on which the two of you were recently edit warring.

Please do not make spurious ANI reports. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know I was supposed to notify parties involved - my bad, and thanks for letting me know. But, either johnb316 is the luckiest man on earth and just happened to notice my comments in all 3 areas, or he's wikistalking me. I'll assume for the sake of peace at this point that he's the luckiest man on earth and hope he stops. Johnb316 if you continue to be really lucky, I'll come back here with evidence. Romans9:11 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely Johnb316 looked at your contribution list, and noticed these reports, and that's why he is here. That is not Wikistalking -- particularly since you've been forum shopping your false allegations against him. If somebody were running around criticizing me, I'd check their contribution list too! In fact, just as a matter of course in understanding this dispute, I have looked at both you contribution list and Johnb316's several times today. That is not Wikistalking.

Romans, my patience with you is exhausted at this point. Please do not make any other spurious allegations against Johnb316, or you will be blocked without further notice, as per Toddst1's notice on your talk page. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet I must have offended you somehow, because, it appears that you are making personal allegations against me. I have in NO WAY been "forum shopping" and am insulted by your accusation of such. I've been trying to do the RIGHT thing and stop, what I see to be, a disruptive editor who's making it very difficult for me and others to make a contribution to Wiki. If you and Toddst don't see it that way, well o.k., perhaps I need to have better documentation next time I make a complaint. And, next time I guess I'll try and be the first one to make a complaint on the board - in my experience the first one to complain usually gets the benefit of the doubt. Again, I'm sorry if I've offended you and as I said in my last post here, I'll give Johnb316 the benefit of the doubt and not make any allegations against him without more evidence.Romans9:11 (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jaysweet. Hopefully this conversation is over and we all can get back to more important things.Johnb316 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am marking this as resolved. There is nothing to see here. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:CyrilleDunant

User seems to be quick to revert and engages in NPA violations. You can say users talk page is peppered with it. User seems to remove other peoples comments. User might need to be explained a few things. -- Cat ^chi? 10:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot

Resolved

 – Added myself in the list. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Today CorenSearchBot chased me from article to article after creating new pages like Nahoutinga. I need to add myself in User:CorenSearchBot/allies. So any community approval before I proceed? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just do it - I'm pretty sure you won't destroy Wikipedia (deliberately, anyway!). Neıl 龱 14:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Your recent article creation work seems excellent (better than mine, anyway) and if you do destroy Wikipedia, we can always block you. I see no reason why you shouldn't be on the list. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark Levin recent edits in need of arbitration

Intervention or possibly just arbitration would be appreciated at the Mark Levin page. An attempt to add a bit of seemingly minor information has been repeatedly reverted by user:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.68.132.134 (Sorry, still learning the ins and out of wikipedia, don't know how to fast link). Another editor has attempted to add this information, but it has been scrubbed. Despite a discussion thread being opened on the subject, the user has as of this time, not responded. The user hasn't really made a case as to why it should not be included. However, this user does routinely revert the inserted material on the Levin page, then makes unnecessary commentary that boarders on insult in their edit summaries. I would say this it is possible this editor mistook the links provided as an advertisment, as sometimes news articles include phone numbers or links to places where a person can purchase tickets to an event that is written about. However, in light of the fact that this did come from a news source, and given the remarks in the edit box, I feel that the reverts issued by this user were not only unconstructive, but purposely done in bad faith. Thanks for any help you may provide in this matter.Rocdahut (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I recall that someone attempted to add info on Rush Limbaugh's charitable activities to his own article a while back. This was resisted by some editors as an unimportant detail. Here in Mark Levin's article nobody has claimed the charitable activity was unimportant, but they did say it was improperly sourced. Now there is a reference provided at http://www.thechronicleonline.net, which seems to be the online version of a Christian newspaper. It is arguable this is a good enough source for the statement that Mark Levin gives benefit concerts. Anyone who doesn't like this source might raise the matter at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

featured article contains vandalism

Resolved

 – Vandalism removed

hi dont know mutch about Wiki, but i think i found several vandalism in featured article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheerness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.12.10.1 (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Various irregularities in AfD for Allegations of Israeli Apartheid

Resolved

Extended content

This here is a perennial AfD so there's always been a fair share of eDrama surrounding it all, but iteration #8 is getting to be quite a mess. HandThatFeeds files the AfD, admittedly on behalf of another user Wikifan12345 aka 70.181.148.148. (self-identified as such here, this isn't an accusation) It was pointed out that this is not allowed per Wikipedia:Speedy keep criteria 1. Was unaware of this rule myself, and no one else has commented on this angle as of yet. Wikifan12345 has ex post facto altered the nomination rationale, reverted by Thetrick here, then reverted back by Wikifan's IP. Wikifan12345 has been violating WP:CANVAS, namely the votestacking section, by only posting alerts to the AfD to editors of a particular (i.e. his own) side. This should not in any way be taken as casting aspersions those who were canvassed, but the fact that the users who he contacted... Humus Sapiens, Amoruso, et al...are either regarded by regulars who edit Israeli-Palestine articles as "pro-Israel" or may appear to wikifan to be such based upon their own userboxes, self-categorization, etc... (all of which is what WP:CANVAS suggests can be used as identifiers) is undeniable. Tarc (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I fully endorse Tarc's comments, and would add that the anti-Arab sentiments outlined in this statement would seem to undercut WikiFan12345's credibility somewhat. Seriously, this afd is even more of a partisan mess than previous nominations, and that's saying quite a bit. CJCurrie (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Comment I think it's reasonable that those most active in this area of discussion know what's going on. I merely made them aware of this important happening. I see nothing wrong with that. I personally wanted the opinion of the Israeli wiki section, as the discussion going on in the nominations page was going nowhere. It became a single-view for keep and the reasons remained the same. If I violated any rules, I'll gladly retract my statements made to the alerted people and accept the appropriate penalties. In response to CJ's concern, I edited those statements seconds after submitting. It was an error of mine and I regret it. Thank you Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Comment If we're talking about name calling, I'd like to mention several users involved in the discussion attacked me and others with inappropriate terms (Israeli Defenders, for example) that offered nothing to the issue. But, I'm quite forgiving and understand users get very heated in these types of discuss. I just don't want people to consider me something that I'm not, which seems to be the case here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I have little interest in this AfD because I know how it's going to end up (though in the interest of full disclosure, I have consistently voted to delete it in the past, and believe it should have been deleted long ago), but since Tarc's first bullet point raises a "process issue" that may affect other AfD's, I just want to respond to it. I believe the person who mentioned SK criterion 1 on the AfD page is taking one sentence of it out of context and misinterpreting it. If you read the sentence in question, all it says is, "Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves." It doesn't say there's anything wrong with doing so. (And if you look at the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, the last sentence of this section also states that this happens sometimes, and there is no suggestion that there is anything wrong with it.) If you read criterion 1 in its entirety, basically what it is saying is that if, at some point in the AfD, nobody (including the nominator) is currently supporting deletion, the AfD can be closed as a speedy keep. Then it goes on to point out that sometimes the nominator is doing so on behalf of someone else and this does not count as a support for deleting the article. It is irrelevant here, because four or five people have "voted" to delete the article, so there is no unanimity regardless of whether the nominator counts. (I think criterion 1 needs to rewritten so it can't be misinterpreted this way. I am not even sure why criterion 1 is necessary, since WP:SNOW also seems to apply, and does not require unanimity.) 6SJ7 (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC) It's a mess, but it looks like the AfD, like the preceding seven attempts, will come out as Keep. Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) isn't really to blame for the fact that someone else had to set up the AfD properly. This account was created on June 7, and on June 8, he tried his first AfD, botching the mechanics of the process somewhat. He was trying at one point to post an AfD in the deletion review log [19]. He asked other editors for help, went to the Help Desk, and someone else stepped in just to get the process straightened out. So he shouldn't be bitten (WP:BITE) for that process error. On the other hand, this is close to being a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. The canvassing is somewhat disturbing, especially after the CAMERA editing-team debacle. --John Nagle (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I've stated this more than 3 times, twice in the nomination page (if you were reading it): I've been editing at wikipedia for more than 6 months, it's only recently did I register an account. I pray this is the last time I have to say this. *prays* Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Comment I stand behind my interpretation of the WP:SK #1 guideline as discouraging nominations that the nom-poster immediately attempts to distance himself from. Especially when the nomination is controversial, this method of sparking an AfD seems like bad process. Townlake (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) It may be your opinion that it's bad process, but the page that you're citing doesn't prohibit it, or even discourage it. Quite frankly, it is so badly written that that particular sentence doesn't really say anything. The Guide to deletion, on the other hand, says that this is what sometimes happens, and doesn't say there is anything wrong with it, which strongly suggests that it is acceptable (especially since WP guidelines are supposed to be "descriptive" of current practice.) In my own opinion, there is nothing wrong with a more experienced editor assisting a less experienced editor who is having difficulty navigating the bureaucratic requirements of the deletion process, even if it means that the "helper" actually has to post the AfD. Otherwise, we're saying that if you think an article should be deleted but you can't immediately figure out the process, just go away. That doesn't seem to be in the "spirit" of Wikipedia. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Reply I certainly agree with you on the community spirit of WP and how much we should all support it. We clearly disagree on SK #1. I'll respectfully bow out of the discussion here, since I don't want to sidetrack this ANI conversation. Townlake (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC) IMO, everything except for the WP:CANVASsing issue can be immediately dropped. For all intents and purposes, Wikifan12345 was the nominator and HandsThatFeeds was just giving him technical assistance. His ex post facto modification of the nomination should be treated as if he was the original nominator and just decided later to revise his nomination. Frankly, without Twinkle, I doubt I could get all my ducks in a row for an AfD. That's kinda hard. So I am very sympathetic to Wikifan's predicament. The canvassing issue can be debated separately. I have no opinion on that at this time. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway. Question: Have any of the "canvassed" persons even posted to this afd? I don't see the named individuals in the list at all. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC) No disrespect intended, but I have to ask if it matters? IMO even if a canvas violation was a failure, it is still something that is not allowed. But to get to the answer to the question, yes; Oren neu dag (vote) and FrummerThanThou (vote). Ynhockey also voted in the AfD, but the vote cast precedes Wikifan's notification. Looking at the remaining contrib histories of the rest, none have been active since the notification; some as little as a few hours, others as much as a month or more, while one is even in the middle of a 60-day ban. Whatever user list was consulted in this, it was a peculiar and somewhat out-of-date one. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Apparently they didn't vote until after these charges were brought up here. Maybe you'd have more of a chance of having canvassing stick had there been some foul play that could be directly linked to the canvassing charge, but it does not appear that the canvassing really had any real affect on the AfD. Looks like a snowball close anyways. What real admin action is required here? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Comment I wasn't aware of any rule that restricted the notification of a deletion process to other wiki members. The members who I notified all belonged to the wiki-Israel project. I felt it was only fair to let the people most involved in this area of discussion know what's going on. As far as ethical violations, I did alert some people involved in the wiki-palestinian project, I think. Not everyone in the wiki-project Israel is "Israel Defender" or "Zionist Pig", as many of you describe them to be. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Er, "Zionist Pig" ? "Many of you" who? This tactic of leveling veiled charges of antisemitism against one's perceived opponents here is a very bad road to go down. Tarc (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC) The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Wikifan has implied that his perceived opponents are anti-Zionist , or anti-Isreal, and as improper as that accusation is, you're responding with 'I'm not an antisemite' - a charge not levelled at all. Would you mind explaining what brought that about? Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Yeah read the nomination and discussion pages. There is one particular person (forgot name) who has made a strong effort to outline my unspoken political relationships as negatives. His name starts with an E...I don't feel like looking it up lol. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I did alert some people involved in the wiki-palestinian project, I think. This is a truly dishonest statement (with obvious placement of weasel words) from Wikifan12345 since his contribs are easily found and he made 13 consecutive notifications, all on the user pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel/Participants. Participants of Wikiproject Palestine are just as easily found yet none of them were notified. --Thetrick (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I have to admit, given Wikifan's subsequent behavior, I regret assisting in the AfD. I can understand the purpose of SK#1, but it really doesn't do anything to prevent POV nominations to AfD. I'll stand by helping the user properly format the AfD, and I believe some good discussion has come from it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I put this sick dog down. Maybe someday we'll have a consensus on that festering sore of an article, to either heal it or simply amputate it, but for now it's painfully obvious that we don't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Comment Several of the people who belonged to wiki Israel also belonged to wiki Palestine. I AM NOT THE PROBLEM. Don't use me as a scapegoat to defend a propaganda piece. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll write a poem about this.

Roses are red

Violets are blue

This discussion is over

Even though this doesn't rhyme - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How about Let's do something new! for the last line? It rhymes and God knows, it's needed... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should try

Writing some haikus instead

They don't have to rhyme - shoy 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR and removing AfD tags

Earlier today I tagged for AfD two articles, Chiacig_crime_family, and Alfredo Chiacig, both created by User Rico-rico1982 (talk · contribs). He and an IP 213.100.20.76 (talk · contribs) (which I suppose is him) has edit-warred me and some others removing the tags. I think the subject could be CSD, but as I wasn't sure I nominated it on AfD. I'm trying to keep the tag there, and Static Gull (talk · contribs) is doing the same. But I'm afraid I'm about to break 3RR myself. Could an admin help a bit here? Samuel Sol (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WP:3RR is used in the re-adding of WP:AFD notices. Not for sure though. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that sure either, but didn't want to risk. Anyway I'm getting tired of doing it. Samuel Sol (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They will come under 3RR as soon as they are warned. You will not be blocked for reverting the removal of the tags, but they will be for removing them. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Rico-rico1982 (talk · contribs) 72 hours for disruption. Monitoring the IP. I also salted Alfredo Chiacig against recreation, given the BLP issue, and will happily remove protection if sources are provided for a neutral version of the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted Chiacig_crime_family as a purely unsourced, negative biography of living persons. I invite a review of the deletion, as I both added a comment to the AfD and blocked the article's author. It is a BLP violation, though, up to and including accusing a living person of murder. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. 100% unsourced, negative material about living people. Clear WP:CSD#G10 material. GRBerry 13:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See contributiions of Lisa-1982 (talk · contribs). I'm not familiar with the issues, but I remembered the name. More of the same? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"could you please do me a favor?"

Resolved

 – No harm done, and no reason to believe this is more than a one-time event.

User:Abhaac has posted a request on a number of user talk pages, asking for help with a Master's thesis, and looking to "validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia". He plans to post a URL and a questionnaire. My approach to this kind of thing would be to ignore it. This could be legitimate, or it could be spam, or even a scam of some kind. What do you all recommend? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't ask for any personally identifiable information, I don't see a problem with it. It sounds like a valid topic for a thesis, and I can definitely sympathize with the need to get 3rd party objective opinions in order to validate the data in a Master's thesis (in my case, I was able to get my friends to do it in exchange for beer, ha ha ha...).

The only caveat I would add -- and this is an obvious one -- is that anyone who chooses to participate should have their virus protection up-to-date before clicking the URL, should not download any executables, and should not click on it at work or anywhere that a shock site would do more damage than just a minor scar on your psyche. ;)

When he does post the URL, it might be worth it to report back here and have somebody volunteer to click it, just to make sure it's not spam or malicious, and doesn't ask for personal info. Until that point, I am inclined to WP:AGF (especially since the story rings so true to my ears). --Jaysweet (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There's one here User_talk:TharkunColl#could_you_please_do_me_a_favor.3F Personally I find any research about wikipedia, intriguing and think it should be encouraged/tolerated. Sticky Parkin 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

He asked me, and I said I would try to help him. If he ever actually does give me whatever links he wants me to go to, I'm going to fire up my old 600 MHz Windows Me machine... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if it asks for personal info, people are free not to give it (or to lie), so why the emphasis on that as a potential problem? --Random832 (contribs) 18:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A fair question. I would feel a little uncomfortable with someone canvassing Wikipedia asking for personal info, but then again, he is canvassing looking for volunteers, so then if he asked only the people who volunteered for personal info (and they obviously would be free to decline) I don't see a problem with it.

I'm inclined to mark this Resolved... Seems innocent enough, and in the unlikely event it turns out to be spam and/or malicious, we can warn people at that time. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I got one of these and didn't think enough of it to do anything about it - but if this became regular practice and my orange bar was on all the time with survey solicitations, I'd be a bit irritated. I hang up on phone calls like that. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I got one, saw it as canvassing/spam. I'd much rather see these research soliciations on WP:Village pump, where hundreds of editors will see them anyway, only my own take on it though. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I firmly believe the kid is acting in good faith and is legit, so he might actually appreciate your suggestion to bring it up at Village Pump... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no worries about his good faith here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to point him to Village Pump, but then I noticed he's already got like a dozen volunteers, so I think the point is moot. I'm marking this as resolved, with the recognition that if Wknight's nightmare scenario came true, there'd have to be a policy enacted against this sort of thing. But right now, I see this as no harm, no foul. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Caspian Blue

Resolved

 – for at least 24 hours. IP blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR

Re User_talk:Caspian_blue. Please see discussion on our relative talk pages [20] and [21], I am preparing a reply and it will be ready in a few minutes.

User attempting to set up dubious 3RR and admin intervention to support POV.

Thank you --60.42.252.205 (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a content dispute over an edit to Comfort women with Caspian blue (talk · contribs) which has escalated out of control. I am not sure why this person has posted a report to ANI if they are not yet ready to. Shessh.... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh, the anon who blanked massively properly cited contents sinced yesterday and violated 3RR on MY TALK PAGE with repeated insulting comments regardless that I said "please stop!" and reported here? what a good gesture. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see summary with diffs on my talk page. [22] I just wanted to preempt this ... sweet individual from what they was obviously going to do next. --60.42.252.205 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To, Jaysweet, with all due respect, I do not have a content dispute with the anon, but have a problem with his attitude and mockeries. The anon began blanking contents since yesterday without any discussion with editors, so I restored it. Because to me, they're all well-cited materials regardless of non-English sources. The anon is the one who speaks contradictions as gaming the rule in order to make me look as bad as possible. What is wrong with my suggesting him to open a discussion on relevant talk page? The result is I should bear his mockeries such as I have been plotting 3RR report on him from bad faith and nationalistic intentions? The anon is the one who be summoned by me.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

60.42.252.205's 3RR violation as he/she requests

As you wish, I do report your 3RR violation on MY TALK PAGE. Did I suggest that if you have a content issue, then address it to relevant pages not as leaving insulting comments on my page. But you keep reverting regardless of my warning. And then you falsely accuse me of setting you up? All I tried to do is to cool you down and to prevent you from reverting unnecessary comments.

• 1st 2008-06-12T17:06:27_{You are talking rubbish to label the edits as distruptive.}
• 2nd 2008-06-12T17:21:33
• 3st 2008-06-12T17:32:41 _{Can I be honest, it appears to me that what you are trying to do is set me up for a complaint to an admin over some bogus charge to suit your own political agenda which appears to be Pro-Korean}
• 4th 2008-06-12T17:44:46 _{My friend, the intentions behind your actions are utterly transparent to any English speaker, never mind any experienced wikipedian (e.g. attempting to set my up for a 3RR in response to your reversion.}

• [23]_{If you notice, I preempted your WP:3RR warning predicting it entirely. I am sorry, no. It is an very old trick to use provocative revisions and threats on newcomers.}

It is weird that the anon who're claims to be a newbie says about "old trick" of Wikipedia as trying to make mockeries on me. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Observations

A few observations:

1. These three reverts [24] [25] [26] by the IP on Caspian's talk page were not appropriate. Please see WP:DRC. In the future, do not restore warnings or other comments on another person's talk page.
2. Caspian blue did report this to AIV, and was rebuffed. It is not simple vandalism, but I think we all knew that.
3. The IP objects to this 3RR warning, but it was only a warning, and no 3RR report was filed. If you don't like a warning, remove it. Both edits appear to be edit warring, so a 3RR warning is certainly not out of line.
4. The edit war in question appears to be over whether the Comfort women were forced into it by the Japanese, or if Koreans forced their own citizenry into it and handed them to the Japanese.
5. Caspian's characterizes the IP's edits as "blanked massively". This is not really accurate. It is a content dispute between two sources with very different characterizations of the issue.
6. FWIW, Blueshirts (talk · contribs) and Selket (talk · contribs) appear to support Caspian's version. I am also inclined to support Caspian's version, from the little I know on the topic.

I do not support either version. I just worry about whether vandalism process is being used as a weapon in a content dispute. --Selket ^Talk 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The IP's contribs do not show a single attempt to discuss this at Talk:Comfort women, so that's bad.
2. The IP's contribs also seem to indicate an apologist pov for WWII Japanese war crimes (or alleged war crimes).

So that's what I see so far.. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: Indeed, the anon not only violated policies including WP:NPA, WP:3RR on my talk page, but also did the same thing on Comfort women as well.

Please check this Comfort women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Caspian blue (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked, and I believe the IP is one away from 3RR on Comfort women (unless I missed one). Also, reading his edits more closely, I am somewhat disgusted. He seems to be implying that Korean women were signing up in droves for the privilege of becoming Japanese sex slaves. I know this is a hot-button political issue in SE Asia, but this kind of edit warring without consensus is unacceptable.

Also note that, upon further review, Caspian blue has not been edit warring at Comfort women (only a single revert).

I have given the user another 3RR warning, and if the IP reverts again on Comfort women, I will file the report. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If the first removal is regarded as "revert", the anon seems to already violate 3RR rule again.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reported the IP to 3RR for edit-warring on Comfort women. Other editors have already started to copy-edit his change, so I'm not sure whether to revert it or what. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I perceive that 60.42.252.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) reverted five times on the Comfort women article on June 12, which violates WP:3RR. His new edit at 18:58 UTC shows him continuing past Jaysweet's warning. It seems that some of his edits were well-intentioned, but he doesn't show much collaborative spirit. I have blocked the IP 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you remove personal attack remarks on me at his talk page? Such as Very shortly after, I received a number of increasingly hysteria warning threats [2] and revisions from a Pro-Korean editors Caspian_blue [3]. I recognised that I was being set up in an attempted WP:3RR or IP admin that would support his POV and post a note of this on his page [4] ... preempting exactly what I suspected 1 minute later [5].--Caspian blue (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The complaints about Caspan blue on the IP's Talk page sound angry but not defamatory. I would not be inclined to remove them myself. I hope that all parties will discuss their reasoning at Talk:Comfort women so that any remaining deficiencies in the article can be addressed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:The SRS

Various issues have been coming up revolving this user:

• He claimed that his account was hacked, and that somebody else was getting on his account to make userspace edits, and that it was not him. After Alison preformed a checkuser it was found to be that he was lying, and was making all of those edits. He has been warned time after time to stop making userspace edits, and get into namespace, and he basically refused to.
• He appears to be good friends with indefinitely blocked user User:SexySeaClownfish
• He created this video on his YouTube account. The link to his account was found on his userpage.
• He attacked myself, Alison, and even his adopter The Hybrid with a middle finger in ASCII form on his userpage, but I have since removed it.

He has recently apologized, but after all of this, I believe some sort of action needs to take place. -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have an opinion on the matter, but I'd rather not express it. I will submit to whatever decision is reached here without objection. Cheers, The Hybrid 11:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor is 14 (and a half and a bit) years old and appears to act it. The contributions to the mainspace are generally in areas where there is a surplus of good editors (I presume, because WWF and its ilk mean little to me - and the little I know does not encourage me to learn more) and the rest is pretty much social networking and teenage moping. Perhaps this is an instance where the encyclopedia might take itself away from this person? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he should have his editing powers taken away if he called all of us a-holes. Altenhofen (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... we should at least delete his user page, that could calm his "MySpace" tendencies a bit. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He'll prolly go nutz if you do that. Best off trying to get him to rationalize it a bit first, as we did with User:Hornetman16, back in the day. Has anyone tried this yet? - Alison ^❤ 23:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, to me going arround throwing tirades with sockpuppets of blocked users seems bad enough. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Myself and Hybrid has tried rationalizing with him best we could, and he doesn't listen. It's best for his page to be deleted. -- iMatthew _T.C. 23:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I told him to take a Wikibreak. I, personally, would like to see him given another chance. However, if his page is deleted he'll go nuts, as Alison said. He messaged Ryulong after Ryu deleted SexySeaClownfish's page, and SRS sees deletion of a page as something very serious, to say the least. If you're going to delete his page, it's best to block him as well to prevent him from "expressing his opinion" about it. However, while I would like him to receive a second chance, I also have to acknowledge that he doesn't deserve it. Off-wiki attacks with a sockpuppeteer, false claims of hacking, and almost no productive contributions. If he's blocked, I won't protest. The Hybrid 09:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also see this. He's clearly in contact with another blocked sock. I suggest getting the mop out... D.M.N. (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a 3 month block or page deletion would due, but be forwarned; he willed be P-O'd if you delete his page. I should know, look how I handled my page deletion (very poorly). But blocking, on the other hand might make him even more upset. Just a little heads up for you admin dudes. Altenhofen (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Lisa-1982

Resolved

 – for now...

User is posting articles on a supposed Mafia family. Totally unsourced and at best a violation of WP:BLP, at worst blatant attack pages. Suggest someone steps in fast. Exxolon (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User now indef blocked. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#3RR_and_removing_AfD_tags above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted Mafia boss as unsourced BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Probable sock of User:George-hans. I've never really dealt with socks before, anyone want to take a swing? Tan | 39 21:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Raised block to indefinite. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

...and it's outta here! :-) Tan | 39 22:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Been whacked, as it were? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm Probably sock of a Rico-Rico 1982 (talk · contribs) or something and another IP that I "battled" earlier today. Creating an article on a supposedly mafia family and its boss. Samuel Sol (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

Resolved

 – blocked indef

Special:Contributions/Richieleslie is changing sections of articles to copies of others with only the names changed to the article's subject, as well as other vandalism. I've given a test4im, but as he hasn't yet vandalised after that time, I'm reporting it here. TransUtopian (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, thanks to Tanthalas39. TransUtopian (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a speedy cleanup area?

Resolved

 – parked at AfD

Jay Albertson Park. I can't find my {{sofixit}} mop. Is there a triage area anywhere round here? Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anything to clean up. The current article is, in its entirety, a copyvio of this (about a third of the way down the page); and although there are other versions in the history, they have problems of their own. The consensus may be that populated places are inherently notable, but it hardly follows that every public park in every such place is notable. Deor (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sent on its way to AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Molobo

I have blocked Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely. He's recently gone back to his old ways of incessant revert-warring and sockpuppetry, with two 3RR blocks within a week. His block history includes a year-long block from Dmcdevit (talk · contribs) as a last chance. Seeing as he has failed to take that chance, I see no reason not to declare him banned. Please review. At the very least, stringent editing restrictions will be required if we decide that a ban is not the way to go here. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The user had a long history of edit warring and personal attacks. He blew his last chance(s). WP:NOT therapy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support block Edit history shows edit-warring, incivility. This user was warned many times. Enough is enough. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support block per Otolemur, and support community ban due to the sockpuppetry. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block - I don't know this particular user very well, but this thread is convincing, along with a brief review of the block log and its relevant reasons. Rudget (Help?) 14:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse a block to avoid further damage to WP, not to teach him a lesson, which hasn't taken anyway. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

His talk-page still says he's only blocked for a week. BradV 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a formal notice there. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block. An editor could change over time. But I looked at his recent edits to Strategic bombing during World War II and found no reason for optimism there. His edits were rightly reverted. His source for the facts about the earliest German bombing raids in 1939 was a novel by an East German writer. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, unfortunately. I explained to Molobo on his talk page how he can constructively contribute to Wikipedia, but this has been explained to him again and again. When he was blocked for a year by Dmcdevit, it was his final chance to change his ways. However, he has exhausted the community's patience to the extent that short blocks are no longer an option. Khoikhoi 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Good riddance to bad rubbish. Hopefully in a few months we won't see a topic here where he begs forgiveness and tries to get back in. Jtrainor (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the indefinite block and have marked his userpage to indicate there was a consensus for the indefinite block, ie. a ban. Daniel (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Dissent. Has Molobo actually broken 3RR more than once since the expiry of his block few months ago? Has he been found guilty of using a sock (I don't recall he has even been accused of that, even)? NO evidence for that has been presented here. He was not placed on any revert restriction by an ArbCom and as such has the same rights to revert as others users. 8 revert diffs were cited User_talk:Molobo#Blocked_again at his talk page - each at a different article, usually with a frequency of one of his edit a week or rarer (hence there is even no evidence of any serious revert warring! - ex. [27]), some of them don't look to me like obvious reverts or are justified ([28], [29], per WP:NCGN). I don't see any heavy reverting in Strategic bombing during World War II cited here as a prime example of his disruption. I am also very suprised to see some here argue about the merit of his edit. Regarding Strategic bombing during World War II and Frampol (documented in quite a few sources), for example: 1) his opponent was an IP (likely a sock of some neo-Nazi) 2) first the anon reverts him without comment ([30]), then after the anon criticized his source in the edit summary he finds another ([31]) and then he gets blocked! For what? For normal editing the article, adding new sources when his old ones are questioned, and reverting a few articles in a week?? Bottom line is that Molobo has not broken 3RR more than once in the past few months (and he has already served his "time" for that), has not used sockpuppets, has not revert warred even close to 3RR on the articles cited in warning on his talk page, was never sanctioned by ArbCom, but has simply dared to revert a few articles - and was blocked for that. This is simply and grossly unfair.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Cbsite resuming edit war, cursing at other user in edit summary

Background: A few weeks ago, User:Cbsite and I had an extended conflict over The Color of Friendship. (I felt it should be a redirect, Cbsite felt it should be a disambig page, I cited a WP guideline supporting my opinion and attempted to discuss the issue, Cbsite ignored all attempts at discussion or building a consensus and just kept reverting it to a disambig. See Talk:The Color of Friendship, and that article's edit history, for further details.) Admin User:Ricky81682 eventually ended the issue by blocking Cbsite temporarily (he then posted this request for block review), and another admin had to protect Cbsite's Talk page to keep Cbsite from removing the block notice; for more details on that, I encourage you to check out the history of User talk:Cbsite, but it's a bit awkward to wade through as Cbsite reverts virtually every single comment made on his or her Talk page, usually declaring them to be "vandalism" no matter what the comment actually says.

Anyway, the reason I'm bringing this all up again is that today Cbsite once again reverted The Color of Friendship to a disambig, with no comments made; I still have it on my Watchlist, so I reverted it; and Cbsite has now reverted it again, this time with the edit summary, "Don't start with me again, fucking bitch." Given that this seems a fairly strong indicator that Cbsite is no more amenable to discussion or reconciliation of the issue than before, I thought I might as well bring it straight here rather than revert again and wait for Cbsite to break the 3RR and spout more profanity at me. Propaniac (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for blatant incivility. However, I would like a review of this block's length. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems appropriate to me. There's no misinterpreting that summary. Kevin (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicer than I would have been (but there would have been complaints so thanks). It's clear what's going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Thamarih

This user has a warning for personal attacks and threats less than 24 hours old and continues:

• [32] - "Our belief is that the only reason Mr Russell is here is for sectarian harassment purposes, … It is our belief that Mr Russell is following a guideline and directive by the Internet committee of the Haifan Bahai organization to harass us, so we hereby reserve our rights at law. We also believe this individual is now stalking all our submissions on wikipedia."
• [33] - The whole passage is too long to quote here.
• [34] - Again, it's too long to repeat here.

This user is edit warring on Ayahuasca:

• [35]

This user is harrassing me on my talk page with accusations of vandalizing Talk:Juan Cole:

• [36]
• [37]

How many blocks does this guy get? MARussellPESE (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems someone didn't get my e-mail....

I wanted to give them a chance to read and understand what I was trying to tell them, but it seems not to have stuck. They've been blocked for a month--I consider that pretty generous, seeing as how I was originally thinking six weeks might be the magic number. --jonny-mt 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocks by CSCWEM

I am concerned by the lengths of some blocks that CSCWEM has issued recently. He does not seem to be editing regularly, but has returned to issue some very long blocks against IP addresses with histories that do not seem to warrant them. I have raised this here, but have not received a response. I am tempted to reverse some of these blocks but also suggest that this is something which may need to be addressed if it continues. I understand from AuburnPilot that this has been raised to CSCWEM frequently, but that the blocks continue without any clear justification. Any input would be appreciated. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For reference: Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think that 3, 6, 12 month blocks should be reserved for those persistent IP vandals that have already received the customary 24h, week-or-two and 1 month blocks. xenocidic (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment about these blocks on CSCWEM's talk page, but of course received no response; this isn't the first time I've had to ask him to respect the blocking policy. The most troubling of blocks are the ones that occurred without warnings, hours after an editor stopped editing, or those where CSCWEM changed another admin's block without discussion. Hodge04 (talk · contribs) was blocked on 7 May 2008 for one month, in what was already an excessive block, and CSCWEM unblocked and reblocked the account indefinitely without contacting the other admin (and no further abuse from the editor).[38] It needs to be made clear to CSCWEM that his actions are inappropriate, and the lengths of his blocks are excessive. - auburnpilot talk 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Without input from CSCWEM I can only make comments, with the application of liberal AGF. An indef block of a one post vandal, after the expiry of the initial month block, indicates a history that is not apparent from the talkpage to me. The block summary is not exactly comprehensive either, but as noted CSCWEM was executing a great many blocks in a short period. I note in the one example that there was no request for unblock/howl of indignation, sometimes (but not always, of course) and indication of a bad faith account being abandoned upon discovery.

However, I should prefer a response from CSCWEM and would enquire if anyone has mailed them to make them aware of this discussion/these concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, do we really expect an editor who replaces an entire body of text with "YOU SUCK" to really constructive in the future? Granted that this is the sole edit of the account, but I have yet to run into a good-faith account who started off the bat with vandalism. On the flip side, it would be nice to see CSCWEM reply here. seicer | talk | contribs 02:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And if that were the only questionable block, nobody would be complaining, but this is a recurring problem. For example, the last time I had to point out CSCWEM's inappropriate blocks, I made a list of ~250 registered accounts seen here and here (note all have email disabled as default). That was several months ago, and he's still making bad blocks - auburnpilot talk 02:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• As a note, CSCWEM doesn't answer his talkpage. The only reason it isn't 100 screens long is because I set up the archivebot awhile back, maybe even the archives themselves I don't remember. Avruch^T * ^ER 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An admin making questionable blocks who doesn't answer his talkpage, not exactly ideal is it? Maybe it's time they gave up the mop, as it seems it's all too much trouble for them. RMHED (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner".[39] Daniel (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that I have asked CSCWEM a few times to cease and desist his questionable blocks, and like others had received no response. I'm all for the community forcing an answer out of him. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is he editing from an alternate account or something? He just has an incredible number of logged actions for someone with zero edits. But I guess it really doesn't matter - if he's issuing blocks and not stopping to talk about it, that's a big problem. I support a block until such time as he is willing to discuss his actions. --B (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I am with the several other editors who have asked politely and have been rebuffed (I believe I may have had the same experience at ANI over the issue). AGF does not mean willful ignorance in the face of repeated actions that show otherwise. I strongly suggest an RFC, regardless of a block; I will sign it myself if someone opens it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a number of users are concerned, here; an RfC sounds appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) He has not edited a single page since 11 April. I have not checked deleted contribs, but expect them to be similar. He has, however, continued to perform blocks up until 28 May. This is problematic from a procedural basis, simply because he is blocking users withotu actially templating them to let them know when, why, and for how long they are blocked. Some of the blocks are problematic, as noted above - for example, do we block IPs for two years? Most of the edits look like tests and vandalism, so block away, whatever, and I am familiar with escalating blocks... but two years? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have randomly clicked on some of his blocks. A lot of them are just factually incorrect (ie, saying "repeated vandalism to various articles" when the IP only had one edit). This block of a US Department of Justice IP is slightly troubling and even though that isn't on the list of sensitive IP addresses, it's still a darned good idea to put some diligence into it. He has not blocked anyone since May 28, although there are frequently holes in his logs, so that may not mean that he has stopped for good. I think an RFC is appropriate, but regardless of that, I think that he needs to understand (and I will leave this message on his talk page) that if he makes another questionable block, he will be blocked as a preventative measure unless/until he is willing to discuss his actions. --B (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This address falls within the 149.101.0.0/16 - United States Department of Justice block as noted on the sensitive IP addresses, and also on the IP talk page. Kevin (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops ... I missed that one. --B (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me that i had occassion to contact CSCWEM in April with regard to a spam block he made without any warning on a user who had made three edits. Sure, the guy was adding links to his own website but he was never warned at all and also had the email disabled. He said he sent CSCWEM 4-5 emails directly over a six month period but all were ignored and eventually he sent a fax to the Foundation. I raised it was CSWEM on his talk page (User_talk:Can't_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me/Archive_2#DoctorGs) but, like everyone else, was ignored. I don't think people should be using admin tools at all if they are not prepared to respond to messages from users and fellow administrators and I am concerned that he seemed to be routinely disabling people's email for no apparent reason (I haven't checked to see if he still does that so it might not be an issue anymore). Sarah 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the lack of a response and interest by CSWEM, and the concerns raised, I think that the next step is to file an RFC? Has anyone tried IRC to see if he is still on? seicer | talk | contribs 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the last time CSCWEM actually replied on his talk page was over 5 months ago. Needless to say, this is concerning if he is still using the tools while ignoring users asking him questions. I hope he will reply somewhere to clear this up. VegaDark (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I love CSCWEM who did a great job back in the days, but I must admit that I am concerned by the blocks he placed on 28 May. He can't really be using his admin tools and be unwilling to communicate. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a silly question here - has any checkuser reading this looked to make sure this isn't a compromised account? CSCWEM was one of our best anti-vandal admins. --B (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole "Repeated vandalism to various articles" phrase is one that he's been using for years. I have to say that none of this is new. CSCWEM has been blocking single-edit IPs for "Repeated vandalism" for as long as I can remember - and I've been around a while. Why is this only a problem now? It seemed like his actions were quietly accepted back then so what happened? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He communicated before. If he was misusing block summaries, that was always a problem. Was it ever brought to ANI bringing wide community attention to it? --B (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I highly doubt that. This seems like an admin who has burned out and lost some of his better judgement because of it. That happens. More importantly, I don't see how an RfC would help. CSCWEM should be blocked indefinitely to be forced into talking, as admins especially are required to do. An RfC would just take time and lead to no clear conclusion while the problem persists... It reminds me of a commercial I saw long ago where a group of bystanders form a committee to solve the problem of a man sinking into quicksand right next to them. Some problems need a quick (and obvious) solution. (I won't block him, because I have to go to bed and don't have the time to deal with the fallout right now.) Grandmasterka 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a stupid question, then. CSCWEM does not edit talk pages, or any other kind of page for that matter - that's part of the problem. Would a block have any effect at all? I mean, technically, would a block prevent him from blocking other users and continuing just as he has been? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The heavy-handed blocks of accounts I have zero problem with. There is no reason to preserve an account with only vandal edits, and if the user wants to become productive they can create a new account (not the same situation for an account with some productive edits and some vandal edits, in which case they may wish to legitimately preserve their contrib history after apologizing for and ceasing the aberrant behavior).

The heavy-handed blocks of IPs are not as cool, especially with the misleading block summaries. If he knew for sure they were static IPs and said as much in the summary, that wouldn't be so disturbing. But, as others pointed out, this behavior has been tolerated in the past, and could be tolerable now.

The failure to communicate, on the other hand, is absolutely unacceptable for an admin. "Ignore the man behind the curtain" is not my understanding of how adminship functions here on Wikipedia. Admins have a responsibility to do more than just play around in their little corner and ignore everything else. I mean, could you imagine if there was an RfA today and the candidate said, "I want the mop so I can block people, but I don't intend to help out anywhere else, do any sort of conflict resolution, and I can't really be bothered to answer messages on my Talk page."? Would there be a single support !vote?!

I remember several months ago seeing CSCWEM's edits all the time when I was doing vandal patrol, and I very much respected his quick response time, tirelessness, and willingness to get tough on vandal-only accounts. He was a great help to the project. But if he has altogether ceased communication with other admins, we can't have that, regardless of his other contributions. Sadly, I think I see a bit of rouge on this clown.  ;( --Jaysweet (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't see much difference between now and the last couple years except he doesn't respond at all any more. But he rarely responded back then in my experience. And someone would bring him up here and a few people would hollar but none of their records were spotless either and CSCWEM generally helps far more than hinders in his vandal-fighting efforts and the whole thing would disappear. I guess this is just a new guard now, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's the whole point, isn't it? He doesn't respond at all to, well, anything. And that's simply not acceptable, just as it wasn't acceptable a couple of years ago. So in that regard, nothing has changed. Additionally, I don't think there's any point in blocking him, as admins can continue to use their tools while being blocked. At least it was like that a year ago or so, so maybe that's changed by now. --Conti|✉ 13:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Maybe. But I see a big difference between "slow responses" and "no responses".

Also, maybe there is a reason why the "new guard" values dialog so much more highly than the old guard. The fact is, Wikipedia is accumulating a very negative public image because of the legions of people who show up, violate some policy, get reverted/warned/blocked, and it is never adequately explained to them what they did wrong. I have a close friend, for instance, who is going for a Master's degree in political science, and I know she has vast knowledge of The Federalist Papers, for which many of the articles on Wikipedia are very short (and sometimes misleading) stubs. But I am having trouble enticing her to contribute, because of an earlier experience on Wikipedia where she got reverted multiple times and it was never adequately explained to her what the problem was. (In fairness, she was doing a hatchet job on an acquaintance in another article in WP:COATRACK fashion, but she made the common new editor mistake of thinking that because it was "true", it was okay to add)

Let's say CSCWEM blocks a vandal, and the vandal doesn't understand what they did wrong, so they ask. If nobody explains it, they'll tell all their friends, "Yeah, I tried to edit Wikipedia but some guy called "ScaryClown" or something banned me from the site after like two minutes! Those guys are jerks and won't let me in their club!"

I was stunned the other day when I complained to my wife (who has a handful of edits here, and is a frequent contributor to our city's Wiki) that some people view Wikipedia as a "cabal of nerds who won't let you in their club unless you memorize a bunch of arcane acronyms" and she said, "Oh yeah, it's totally like that." And this is someone who is PRO-Wikipedia!

We have no shortage of vandal fighters. What we need in admins these days are liaisons to the public, ambassadors for Wikipedia who can articulately explain what we are all about and help people to understand how this place works.

As valuable as CSCWEM's vandal-fighting work is, there are at least a dozen or two dozen people clamoring to take his place whom I am sure could do just as good a job. If we are really in a shortage of vandal-fighters with mops, then start allowing RfAs for people with weak mainspace contribs. Seriously, how many RfAs have you seen get turned down because "We are sure you would use the mop responsibly, and your vandal patrolling work is good, but you just haven't done enough work building an encyclopedia. Come back when you have a few thousand more edits and have created a few articles."? If losing CSCWEM's vandal-fighting prowess is really a priority, that shouldn't be reason to decline an RfA, should it?

I think those declined RfAs communicate the message loud and clear: Wikipedia has enough cops. What we need now are ambassadors and mediators. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can counter your argument by saying that today's Wikipedia has a whole new culture of subtle POV/fringe/agenda pushers and that more policing is necessary rather than less. But then you could counter with stories of overly-paranoid admins who blocked legitimate editors who left forever because of it, etc., etc. If someone can point out especially egregious blocks or diffs (preferably in an RFC or RFAR or the like), please do. Otherwise, I view CSCWEM as one extreme end of a spectrum which also has an extreme opposite end somewhere (probably partaking in this discussion). —Wknight94 (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an entirely different type of policing, though. If CSCWEM is working to combat the subtle pov-warriors, then I retract everything I just said! Anyway, Ncmvocalist has a point (below), so I won't drop another couple kilobytes of essay here ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no point discussing this here further - please take it to RFC or arbitration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue that the community is capable of handling. One of three things will happen - (1) he will return as an active user, respond to those who express concerns, and edit/use the admin tools normally; (2) he will never make a logged action again; or (3) he will continue this unusual pattern of blocking. In the first two cases, the problem is solved and there is nothing to be gained by arbitration. In the third case, there would be near unanimous consent for an indefinite block until such time as he agrees not to take those actions and if he violates that by unblocking himself (or, I've never tried it, but if you still have access to special:blockip while blocked and he uses it), there would be unanimous consent for an emergency desysop. Either way, I don't see anything to arbitrate - the problem will work itself out. --B (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In re: Blocked admins blocking other users, admins can block and unblock themselves or others while blocked from editing, per my extensive research (i.e. I tried it.) So, unfortunately, a block in this circumstance would not be effective. Given that CSCWEM has ceased blocking/admin actioning, I would recommend we strongly urge him to discuss the blocks and concerns before acting again, and that we take a failure to do so as an indication that arbitration (the only procedural means by which a user may be desysopped) is warranted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is with regret that I am starting to believe that perhaps opening an ArbCom to have CSCWEM desysopped pending a reasonable explanation of their actions may be the only way to resolve this. A RfC without the participation of the subject party is a hollow process, and is then only a step toward ArbCom; so that delay may as well be dispensed with.

I am extremely reluctant to take this step, since CSCWEM was the type of admin who inspired me in requesting the sysop bit and further help the encyclopedia, and I remember the helpful and invigorating presence he had when he was a frequent contributor to the noticeboards. However, I will make the RfAR myself if required, as I will attempt as far as possible to request the removal of the flag to be non-prejudiced in that CSCWEM may have admin rights returned by application to the Committee with a reasonable explanation and an undertaking to be more communicative in future. If there is a consensus for such a request I shall then do it tomorrow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think desysopping is in order, but maybe a temporary ban from blocking would be a good idea - until they can prove they can block appropriately...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 20:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe desysopping UNTIL we get an explanation, to prevent further such blocks...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you have to open an RfArb to do that, i.e. I don't think there is any process by which someone can be even "temporarily desysopped" without an RfArb.

I reluctantly endorse an RfArb, unless somebody has a better idea about how to get CSCWEM's attention. The aggressive blocking is probably tolerable, but the refusal to communicate at all is not. (In my humble non-admin opinion, that is :) )--Jaysweet (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• When an admin becomes this jaded it's a shame they don't have the self awareness to just ask to be desysopped for their own good and the good of the project. They could then take a nice long break without the temptation to log in and take admin actions that will likely prove controversial. RMHED (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I know we would have to open an ArbCom case, but I think one's in order (in fact, I endorse it more the more I think about it), I'll give it about an hour and, unless someone stops me, I'll open one...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been no blocks since May 28, and no contributions since April 1. What about we notify him of this thread (already happened, of course) and ask him not to do any more blocks until he is willing to discuss them? We don't need to desysop him for that, just ask politely. If he starts blocking again without any kind of discussion, then ArbCom might be the way to go, IMO. --Conti|✉ 21:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds Ok to me, I'll just mention that on the user's talk page and then - we wait...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I will have retired for the evening in an hours time, so I shall not be around to help as I would like. I intended to open a RfAR "tomorrow" (UK time) as it would allow any good arguments/suggestions to be made here in the meantime, as in this case it would be best if it was as uncontested a request as possible. However, if you wish to proceed I would only ask that you frame the request as an "unprejudiced desysop", pending clarification of the communities concerns. I feel the Committee and the community will better support the action if it is understood that CSCWEM may apply for re-instatement along with an reasonable explanation of both their actions and their lack of commucation. This would be my approach, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Dendodge) Communication is exactly the problem. It appears people have been waiting, and nothing happens. I agree (partly) with Ncmvocalist, it is time to act - but as considerately as possible. I am still intending to open a RfAR in 20+ hours if nobody has acted before, or has a better idea for resolving this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Communication, communication, communication - but we don't know if he's even around now. He's done nothing in over a week. How about wait to see if he ever becomes active again, then prod him for an answer. He may be on vacation now! I don't know if Arbcom would even look at a case under these circumstances. There's really no particular hurry so wait until he returns - if he ever does - to file an Arbcom case. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's no urgency, since CSCWEM hasn't blocked anyone in about two weeks now. If the blocks and the non-communication resume, I'm all for an RfAR, tho. --Conti|✉ 21:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If he's reading this I would urge CSCWEM to ask to be desysopped, no stigma should be attached to this, quite the opposite, such an action I'm sure would be applauded. Take a good few months off and when you're ready to resume communication with the community ask to be resysopped. RMHED (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, ArbCom may totally agree with you and Wknight94 - but we won't know unless we ask. I would prefer to be turned down than to be reminded it is not good practice to lock the stable door afterwards... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should wait, but I was acting on (the) consensus (at the time). I'd be more than happy to have a RFAR ASAP...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I do not know about a request for arbitration. It may be premature, may be not. However, I have started writing an RFC (would be userspace, but someone else created the page): Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Can't sleep, clown will eat me. I cannot possibly hope to complete it with diffs or analysis (I am not good at writing, and I forget stuff anyway). All others, please add and post in the meantime. I will sign on a later date; contact me in the rare possibility that no one else will sign it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As of right now, he has no logged actions in the last two weeks. So there is no evidence that the dispute has failed to be resolved. If he issues another block, then it becomes a problem, but as of right now, this RFC is uncertifiable and I would strongly suggest waiting until there is evidence that this dispute has not been resolved at this point. --B (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Those who are urging restraint are right - no blocks issued since June 11, there's a note on his talk page, leave it st that unless something changes. Neıl 龱 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the last block was late on 28 May, actually - so it's even less urgent. Agree with holding off a bit. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Coming to this entire discussion late, & entirely disinterested ("disinterested" as in I will not directly benefit from its outcome), I'm concurring with the opinion that CSCWEM grew disillusioned with Wikipedia, went thru a "ban them all & let God sort it out" phase, then left. I'd even go a little further & speculate that he possibly left because no one noticed his aberrant behavior until now. (That does seem to be an obvious form of Wikisuicide. And FWIW his user page does mention that he is on Wikibreak, although that announcement seems to have been originally written last November.) In short, he's very likely gone. Now if someone wants to place an indef bock on his account to force him to explain his actions if/when he returns, well I'm not going to revert that -- but I believe the effort would be pointless. The same with an RfC or opening a case with the ArbCom. However, CSCWEM has listed a number of ways to contact him on his user page -- has anyone reached out to him for his side of the story? -- llywrch (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with waiting to see if there are any further problematic actions from CSCWEM before proceeding with an RFC, but my understanding is that these problematic actions have been going on for a long time, that concerns have been raised many times, and CSCWEM has failed to respond or change his behaviour in response to these concerns. However, the only thing that we are all interested in is stopping the problematic behaviour, so if people consider that waiting to see if the problem occurs again will be useful, I would have no objection (especially if there is a strong belief that he may have quit Wikipedia or switched to a different account). Looking again at his blocks logs there do seem to be long gaps, including April 25th to May 28th, and then a very short period in which a large number of blocks are issued - so the current gap of a couple of weeks may not be a strong indication of him leaving/changing account. In the meantime, there is the issue of the blocks (and possibly other admin actions) that he has carried out, which may be continuing to have a damaging effect. I wonder if, in the light of a failure to respond, there is consensus to review and undo any problematic actions. TigerShark (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What I forgot to mention in my paragraph above was a point which anticipated TigerShark's question. Common sense dictates that if an Admin leaves Wikipedia (or is thought to have left) has made a number of questionable blocks, then any other Admin is free to review those actions & either reduce the period or lift the block. We should be willing to do this even while assuming good faith in the actions of the vanished Admin -- after all that Admin may have acted without knowing the whole story, or simply made a mistake & confused two similar usernames. We are not reenacting the court-martial scene from Melville's short story "Billy Budd", where policy & procedure are more important than even human life. -- llywrch (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RfAR/CSCWEM

I have opened a Request and invite all the above parties and other contributors to make statements or provide opinion to help the Committee to decide whether to accept. I would also ask anyone who is in contact with CSCWEM to request that they participate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for desysop of User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Heads up in case it gets missed for being added nearer the top of this noticeboard, I posted this notice per the header. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless CSCWEM has voluntarily subjected himself to recall there is no way (other than ArbCom) to desysop him. Of course, this lack of recall is in violation of basic tenants of consensus, which this project claims to hold so dearly. Bstone (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can think of a better structure for possible desysopping that doesn't leave admins open to the whims of tendentious editors, feel free to suggest it. Black Kite 23:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on the issue here. Bstone (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I completely see your point (and this is a good example of how the current structure falls down), I don't see anything much in the way of a viable alternative there. The problem with "consensus" is that it's very difficult to measure. Black Kite 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The lack of consensus about how to measure consensus is less of a problem than, or is perhaps a direct result of, the lack of consensus about what consensus actually is. Indeed, if we had consensus about what consensus actually is, we would not need to measure it, but rather we would be able to recognize it when it occurs. That said, I entirely agree with Bstone's short and to the point assessment linked above. DuncanHill (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, essentially the idea of "consensus recall" has been repeatedly rejected because nobody has yet proposed a workable system that would prevent such a mechanism from being abused to retaliate against administrators taking unpopular, but policy-compliant, actions. We ask our administrators to do tasks that create enemies - blocks, protections, BLP interventions, et al. Allowing those enemies to have an administrator desysopped by sheer force of numbers would be a disaster for the encyclopedia. FCYTravis (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise no-one has come up with a workable system to deal with admins who have lost the trust of the community. Not everyone who thinks that a particular admin should be de-adminned is "an enemy" - though in my experience that is the first line of attack used against editors calling for such action. DuncanHill (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there's a system called the ArbCom. The ArbCom has consistently shown that it is unafraid to desysop admins who have abused the tools. That is the only legitimate reason to desysop anyone - abuse of the administrator tools. We don't desysop as punishment, we don't desysop because we don't like someone, we don't desysop for content disagreements. We desysop because someone has shown, through their actions, that they can't be trusted to legitimately and properly use the rollback/block/protect buttons. If that's the case here with CSCWEM, the ArbCom can make that call. If they feel it's an urgent matter, they can call for an emergency desysop. FCYTravis (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not describe Arbcom as a workable system. It is a system that can be worked, but that is another thing altogether. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If the community decides who can be trusted to be a sysop then why do we filter all potential desysopings to ArbCom? No, it's a broken system. The community must decide, not ArbCom. Bstone (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not how it works. Again, it is the case that admins may be called upon to take policy enforcement actions that could displease certain parts of the community. If administrators have to live in fear that if they take such actions, they could be targeted for lynch-mob desysoppings, then that creates a powerful disincentive to enforce policy. That is not healthy for the future of the encyclopedia.

If an administrator has misused or abused the tools, then that administrator should have the tools removed. There is no other valid rationale for removing them. FCYTravis (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To me it smacks of some admins holding the community in contempt - basically, they are saying that the community cannot be trusted. Apparently we are capable of deciding who should have the tools, but we aren't capable of deciding that we made a mistake, or that someone hasn't lived up to expectations. An admin can be a bully without actually using the tools - just the threat of use is used by some as a way of preventing legitimate criticism. There are two or three who are almost guaranteed to turn up and threaten editors who criticize their friends - and a lot of other admins who, whether out of cowardice or ignorance, just let it go. Those admins who do call for accountability and responsibility from their colleagues get treated pretty poorly too. It is far, far too hard to get the tools - pretty much guaranteeing that anyone who does get them has put a huge amount of work into getting them, making adminship a very big deal indeed - so then, when it becomes clear that they are no longer the right person to have tools, they and their colleagues will fight the community tooth and nail to stop removal - and in a system which is already designed to make it excessively hard to remove. Adminship no big deal? Wikipedia's biggest lie. Admins have made it a very big deal indeed. DuncanHill (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The community (and in reality a very small part of it) is entrusted in arguing whether a contributor is sufficiently trusted to be granted the tools - but the decision is that of a 'Crat who weighs the arguments for validity. Being entrusted with the tools, and being recognised as using them appropriately are different matters. There are some nasty little tasks that sometimes have to be done (this matter, for example) and decisions are sometimes taken that will otherwise be unpopular with the community (or a small but vocal part of it). The ArbCom, who are individuals with - presently and historically - sysop work experience, understand the responsibilities and pressures of administration activity and are far better to review complaints then either the community at large or (and especially) the sysop community. It is unfortunate in many ways that the removal of the sysop bit is far more difficult to achieve than the granting, but the sometimes contentious and unpopular work admins do will not get done for fear of having to go through the process (and never mind the result) every time somebody gets upset with a poor or disputed sysop action. Perhaps the community may decide to request temporary/conditional desysopping from the ArbCom more often in the future? Why not? There are more admins than there ever have been... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:RestoreTheEmpireSociety - Swastika and Racist attacks

Resolved

Userpage deleted,editor indefed by User:Ryulong.--Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs) 02:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk · contribs)'s behaviors draw my attention after he left a highly inappropriate comment on User talk:Flying tiger."show japs the picture of togukawa ieyasu on my page" At that time, he or she was spreading similar insulting attacks to other editors, so I visited his page and saw very surprising and unique user page ever.

Extended content

“ 卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍10,000 YEARS TO CHINESE EMPIRE卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍萬歲 中華帝國卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍 卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍10,000 YEARS TO THE EMPEROR卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍萬歲 皇帝卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍 If you lie once than everthing you say is a lie and i will revert all your edits. Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Japan Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu- proof that Japanese look like fat ugly toads. RESTORE the Chinese Empire and put an emperor on the throne. This user is against Korean stealing of chinese territory in Manchuria and knows that the current border between north korea and china is actually BEHIND the limits of ancient chinese territory! id2 ALot of Korean claim manchuria and liadong peninsula is their lost territory LOL, just because Goguryo ruled it. Well i have news for them..... BEFORE GOGURYO EVEN EXISTED, HAN DYNASTY CHINA HAD COMMANDARIES STRETCHING ALL THE INTO THE KOREAN PENINSULA BEYOND CHINAS MODERN BORDERS, THEREFORE YOUR EXCUSE THAT MANCHURIA AND LIADONG IS KOREA TERRITORY IS USELESS BECAUSE WE CAN NOT ONLY REFUTE THAT, WE CAN CLAIM NORTH KOREA AS OUR TERRITORY...... ”

The first paragraph with a lot of Swastika says like "Heil, Imperial China! (卍卍卍卍萬歲 中華帝國) just like Nazi did to Adolf Hitler.

Besides, the user page has a section containing editors whom he/she thinks of not good, so gave a threat or improper personal/racist attacks to. Given that he registered his account 10 days ago, and he/she is highly likely a sock of some banned user, or any who may make edit warring with the Korean editors. I think the user page has to be removed and the user has to be blocked for his disruptive racist comments and assaults. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable examples

• japanese have small brains at User_talk:No_2_Hinoh, at User talk:Fourteenth hinomaru
• User_talk:Ishikawa_Minoru#your_comments_on_shanghai_talk_page... japanese people are a very primitive people, all japanese writing systems are derived from chinese or the roman alphabet....(the user Ishikawa_Minoru seems to have a serious problem too..)
• the article on the dumb german- russian

This is serious, and I don't see any good contributions from the user in question. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the user's edits, I came to the same conclusion. User page nuked out of the water, user blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing is, before the Germans ruined it for everyone, the swastika was considered a 'good luck sign'. HalfShadow 03:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, when you think about it. Anybody wearing one would need good luck to not get jumped.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, though I agree that the other content on the user page is at best inflamatory and at worst racist, you guys have misinterpreted his use of the swastika. From the Swastika page: These two symbols [卍 and 卐] are included, at least since the Liao Dynasty, as part of the Chinese language, the symbolic sign for the character 萬 or 万 (wàn in Chinese, man in Korean/Japanese, vạn in Vietnamese) meaning "all" or "eternality" (lit. myriad) and as 卐, which is seldom used. When he wrote "...卍卍萬歲 中華帝國", he's saying "long live the Chinese empire." Refer to the ten thousand years article also for more context. —Umofomia (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As a note: Nazi swastikas turn rightward, while all of the ones used by this editor turn leftward. Durova^Charge! 16:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

May have been the only one to be had in the UTF-8 character set. This reversed version can still be seen in a non-political context in Japan, on maps, to mark Buddhist temples. Also, as I recall, the symbol was used by at least one tribe in the southwestern desert of pre-Columbian North America. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In either case, I collapsed the copy of the user page. Symbol of hate or symbol of good luck, either way that little piece of mind terrorism was starting to wear on me a little bit. heh ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite his style, but worth checking to see this isn't DavidYork71? The nick is his sort of thing and he had an obsession with Nazism. Orderinchaos 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Dreamer.se

I posted above, with no administrator response on this user: [40]. the user has been indef blocked elsewhere, and has engaged in fair use violations passed final warnings. Please handle, or say why not to handle. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any recent vandalism and while there are many deleted image uploads from a few weeks ago, lately this editor seems to have been uploading fair use album art with rationales. Could you please provide some diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes some more specific information would be helpful, a quick glance shows no recent final warnings (only fair use di warnings, which the user seems to have rectified). Removing user warnings isn't a prohibited activity on one's talk page. – Zedla (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the previous post, I believe this information is present: the warning is in the deleted versions (if they're still deleted) of the old user talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

IP editor making personal attack

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 3 hours, to be blocked for a longer period if problems resume. MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please check out User talk:Andyvphil where 24.12.114.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is at 7RR or 8RR (more or less) calling this editor a WP:DICK.[41] The IP has been warned several times. I'm filing a new report here because this is only tangentially reported to the larger issue discussed here in the past few days. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what I'm doing wrong. I'm linking to WP:DICK. I've asked for help in numerous places, but NO ONE has given me an answer to how this is a personal attack. Why does the link exist?!? 24.12.114.215 (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never liked that one myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder who we get with an unblock request if that IP gets blocked... Avruch^T * ^ER 02:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps you should take a look again at the boldface message at the top of the meta page to which your link redirects: "The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as 'a dick'." Your very first edit (from this IP, at least) was "Maybe if you would stop acting like a complete WP:DICK …" Deor (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep an eye out for this editor possibly being a WP:SOCK. If they've never edited Wikipedia before they're learning awfully fast. Warnings on people's talk pages, threats to "report" the editors reverting the dick comment, found the report here without a courtesy notice....something is a little odd. Wikidemo (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I admit my first attempt at linking to it was in bad form, but I still fail to see how putting a link to it as I did the last umpteen times is wrong. I give up. 24.12.114.215 (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked the editor to promise to stop doing it to give people a chance to explain things. If "I give up" means what I think it means, perhaps a block can be avoided. Cheers - I'm off for the rest of the night. Thanks for the help. Wikidemo (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stunts like this AIV report are pure WP:POINT and I have blocked accordingly. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call. If this sort of thing resumes, a longer block would be entirely reasonable. MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Improper AfD - Administrator help requested

In reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (6th nomination). This AfD was opened, in good faith, by an editor who actually wants to keep the entry (though he has changed his comment to delete since I asked him to withdraw the nomination based upon what I am about to explain). He listed no deletion criteria in his nomination, instead making reference to talk page comments that suggest others want to delete the entry. As the nominator has pointed out there doesn't seem to be anything explicit in policy stating that a rationale for deletion must be listed, but it is certainly requested in the instructions on making such a listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion, and it is clearly implied in all the policy and guideline pages I can find, like this one: Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination. As someone who actually does believe this entry merits deletion I believe this AfD is pointless and due to the manner in which it was listed will only cause confusion and end in "no consensus" or some other non-decision. As another editor has commented, there is a logic to follow in these discussions, where conventionally we agree or disagree with the nominator's rationale, sometimes suggesting an alternate remedy, and sometimes amending the rationale. Either way discussion revolves around the rationale, and in this case it cannot. Could and admin please do something about this? Either close the AfD as improper or maybe allow someone else to amend the rationale. If something isn't done soon the comments will keep piling up and we'll just have another failed AfD to add to the list, making it 6 thus far. BTW I want to make it clear that I find nothing willfully wrong with the nominator's behavior and am not asking for any sanctions thereof. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently defended the creation of an AfD on behalf of another user. In that case, I thought it was justifiable as there essentially was a sole nominator who endorsed deletion, even though the person who actually started the AfD was a different user. The 3rd party merely stepped in to assist the deletion-endorser with the technical aspects of listing an AfD (which I can sympathize with).

This is an entirely different situation, where an editor has speculatively created an AfD based on discussions on the Talk page. I don't think there's anyway to avoid "another failed AfD to add to the list", but the closing admin should list it as a "Procedural Close", so it is clear that it was not a true consensus attempt. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jaysweet. Whenever a closer feels that the debate has run long enough, he should mark this as a Procedural close, so that the record will be clear the next time this comes around. Obviously this type of close would allow an immediate good-faith nomination for deletion by an editor who *does* have a rationale for deletion to offer. (If nobody besides the nominator had commented in the debate, I would have suggested a speedy close, but now there are too many comments). EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, wasn't this put up for AfD only a month ago or less, and survived, or am I getting it mixed up with another one? Sticky Parkin 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the last one was over a year ago . All of the previous AfDs are listed on the current AfD page, where I see you (Sticky) have commented "keep". This fact, along with your question here, does not instill the outside observer with much confidence that you reviewed the matter much before commenting. I do not mean offense, but it is disheartening to see editors add weight to one side of a discussion in this fashion. One doesn't have to read everything ever penned on the issue, but a little looking should always presage a vote one way or the other. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparent Legal Threat

Resolved

 – user blocked indefinitely

In the interest of WP:DOLT, I would like to report an apparent legal threat against Wikipedia (and myself). Here's the edit [42] Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• User blocked for the legal threat. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughtman and Malik Shabazz's continued edit war on Arthur Waskow

Previous ANI thread. They continue to edit war, despite templates, warnings and admin intervention. Last time MasterOfPuppets indicated any further edit warring would lead to a 2 day block. Bstone (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Both editors were given warnings. Let's see how it progresses from here. --Selket ^Talk 18:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So they are given warnings after given final warnings? The integrity of the process is failing. Bstone (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I started a discussion concerning the category on Talk:Arthur Waskow. MasterOfPuppets agreed that Waskow belongs in the category, but Thoughtman removed him again — without an edit summary, as usual. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 18:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not an involved editor, but was happy my attention was drawn to this page and the person it deals with. An edit-war situation certainly exists. Reviewing however what little evidence there is, it is very hard to see a rationale behind Thoughtman 's reversion of Malik Shabazz's CAT. From the page's details, the CAT seems absolutely appropriate, and [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik]]'s insistence, under challenge, is quite proper. It is up to Thoughtman to provide a detailed explanation of why he persists in holding the page hostage against such an innocuous descriptive category. Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, they are still edit-warring, which is against policy. They have been appropriately warned with threat of block, yet continue to edit war. It's somewhat mind-blogging that they haven't been given a block. Bstone (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that is the technical lay of the land. The objective lay of the land is that one of the two is being disruptive, in editing without reasoned justification for what are otherwise incomprehensible reversions. But if one of the two will not use the talk-page to reply to Shabazz, but simply edits without due recourse to dialogue, I hardly think this imbalance should go unnoticed. I once had to restore 3 highly RS sources that were, in a tagteam effort, consistently reversed without explanation. I was punished, the others sniggled, the text remains defective,. and wiki loses out, simply because an administrator did not happen to use a discretionary word in the right direction, but 'applied the rules'. Admins apply the rules, but they should, in certain cases, look closely at what is happening. Intelligent governments are rule-abiding, but use discretion as well, which is not partisan, but merely a prompt to one of the two parties to play by all the rules (dialogue) and not just the ones that suit them Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) What is somewhat mind-boggling is the vehemence with which Bstone is calling for me to be blocked. I've assumed good faith as long as I can, but I'm not going to bite my tongue any longer.

I wonder, Bstone: Are you still carrying a grudge from February, when I helped defeat your attempt to delete Beyt Tikkun (an AfD that was upheld when you tried to take a second bite of the apple at WP:DRV)? Is this whole thing because I didn't support you in your vendetta against IZAK? Maybe it's time to let it go.

In this case I wasn't given "templates [and] warnings"; I was given a single warning. It wasn't a "final warning", it was just a warning, period.

In the last ANI, I wrote that I would pursue dispute resolution. The first step is to discuss the issue on the Talk page, which I did. I didn't think restoring something that was agreed upon on the article's Talk page was edit-warring. But if I was wrong, I think your reaction is completely out of proportion to the offense. Stop making mountains out of molehills. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not even respond to that, Malik. Adding failure to assume good faith to your persistent edit-warring is not professional. Bstone (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)