Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Canvassing for bot approval

Section moved to Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot#ANI

Crazy wacky funtime

• User talk:SirChristdom
• User talk:Flintrock
• User talk:OpalPI
• User talk:WikiTitan

All four users were indefinitely blocked by yours truly for personal attacks (part of a long-standing effort against an editor I work with often, as well as a couple others now). Threats were met with "use {{unblock}}", which was met with more threats, which was met with a lockdown of their talk pages.

I'm only mentioning it here because I just want a thumbs-up that it is okay to do this (considering that I've completely removed their ability to request an unblock, which I see as an opportunity they squandered by threatening me).

For those that don't want to bother reading the talk pages, the highlights can be found at User:EVula#Collection of threats. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

—Cryptic 06:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I've never seen such artfully crafted death threats. No-brainer support. Grandmasterka 07:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, hells yeah. I wholeheartedly endorse these blocks. -- Merope 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Fancy Moses. Danny Lilithborne 07:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I really have to give credit to the "murder you and hang your body from a oak tree for the piegons to eat" one. I mean, threatening someone with "I will sue" and "I will report you" is the equivalent to just phoning it in. Feeding me to pigeons? That is creative. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, I think the claim that pigeons are scavenging carnivores really needs a reliable source, seesh OR threats, double whammy. Pete.Hurd 04:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• This one is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Well done. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the fun never stops, apparently. I now have the blood of seven vandals on my hands for this particular incident... is there perhaps something a bit more permanent that I can do? This is my first foray into the wonderful world of sockpuppetry (the closest I've ever come was blocking a Bobby Boulders sock), so I'm severely lost. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Put in a checkuser request for all of them, ensure that their point of origin is noted by a CU person for future reference. Georgewilliamherbert 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Those threats were actually one of the few times I've laughed out loud on Wikipedia. They were unusually creative as well as unusually poorly spelled. 65.102.35.249 04:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The fun never stops at Crazy Happy Sock World! Mackensen (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What really gets you, of course, is when the actual sockmaster is making good edits and having the vandals attack his page. I've never quite figured that one out. Mackensen (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that CheckUser confirms that User:American Brit is the sockmaster. All known sockpuppets are now blocked. I'll leave it to the board here to decide what to do about this. Best, Mackensen (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, very interesting... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of a similar situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

<Yoda>Behind the Separatist Sock Puppet attacks, American Brit is? Disturbing, this is. Doubt you, I do not, yet difficult to believe this is. If the Sock Master he is, why accuse himself, as he apparently did? Interesting, this is, as EVula stated. Look into this further, I must; suspected slightly I did, yet decided against it. Taken me by surprise, this has.</Yoda> ≈ The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this crazy or what? I hope it's not true. --Majorly (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a link to the checkuser result? --Majorly (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I told you that guy was messed up, Majorly. Who the heck has children at the age of 12? Nishkid64 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nishkid64 [1]. --Majorly (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, that's the link I was talking about yesterday. Dude, I still think that was made up. They have no clue how it happened, though. This kid says he had kids at 2 kids by the age of 16. How the hell does he afford anything? Nishkid64 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See Mary Kay Letourneau. Teke ^(talk) 00:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked I am being accused of sock puppetry. I ASSURE I HAVE NEVER VANDALIZED ANYTHING. I also am quite upset both of my friends on Wikipedia EVula and Haunted Angel are buying this lie. I honestly now think I should just leave Wikipedia. Also Majorly I hope you know this is all bull crap American Brit 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't lie. --Majorly (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Majorly's right. Stop trying to act innocent. We take sockpuppetry seriously at Wikipedia. Nishkid64 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not acting innocent. I am innocent. This all junk. You cannot prove this. My IP could be shared by over 200 computers. And one man vandalized so I got the blame. Anyway I will be considered leaving this whole website. I feel so betrayed by my once close Wiki friends. All of you know deep down this is not true. I am not a vandal. American Brit 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• You know, even CheckUsers do extend a little good faith now then. Gosh knows it's hard sometimes. But, the thing of it is, you've got a static IP address which you're sharing with a drawer full of sockpuppets, all of which attack you and disrupt the same articles. Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Look I agree that the odds of me and a vandal who argues with me sharing the same IP are very slim, but I am not the puppeter. I admit I knew I was on the same account as them because I was autoblocked when they were blocked. I did not request unblock because I was afraid I would be accused of what I am being accused of now. I really dont know if I am staying here or not. American Brit 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, never would have guessed it.

It does make sense to me though after further review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HolyHandGrenadez (talk • contribs).

omg...No comment...--Dil 04:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I... don't know whether to laugh or beat my head against a wall. And don't crows or ravens normally eat hanged people, not pigeons? --tjstrf talk 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to use logic in this situation... you'll only end up hurting yourself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see...

• CheckUser confirms it
• changing story from American Brit ("My IP could be shared by over 200 computers" became "I admit I knew I was on the same account as them")
• some awfully damming diffs
• similar spelling structure (or lack thereof)
• quirky personal history
• similar userpage setups between socks and suspected puppetmaster (bulleted userboxes)

Yeah, sorry, far too much secondary evidence is backing up the CheckUser for me to consider it a mistake. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My story was not changed I stuck to that from the start.. The damning biffs: the first was explained, I was not trying to attack Haunted ANgel but start a discussion. The wording made it sound bad, it was accident. What do you mean by simalar setup? and quirky personal history? American Brit 19:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm from the same area you are from (Charleston/South Charleston). I know that us Charlestonians (HeheHe), don't often have children at 13. You also seem to live a very exciting life that would not fit the part about have 2 kids, especially at young ages. You really wouldn't have that time to travel/ etc.

-Holy hand grenadez —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.251.69.157 (talk • contribs).

Are you saying I lied about my background? I assure you every comment on my user page is true, except the names. I did not put my familys real names for security reasons. Time to travel can be explained. My Grandfather works for a company that is constantly sending to European Union nations, thus I trave along with him. My mother is a nurse and my Uncle owns a large number of shares in oil corporations. My family is not dirt poor. Anyway I left Charleston in December and I know live in Cheadle, Manchester, United Kingdom American Brit 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you've changed some info on your userpage.

Anyway, Usercheck doesn't lie. Why aren't people banned for sockpuppeting?

I have not changed any thing. I changed the names only for as I stated above security. If I wanted to make up a life story do you really think thats what I would tell? American Brit 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

American Brit, you are such a bad liar. See [2]. Took you a while to realize that there are only 30 days in April :P. Nishkid64 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

...And his latest birthdate is October 8th, 1987. Anyway, what do we do now? I'm not a big fan of punitive blocks, but usually death threats get the banhammer. Quite a way to repay his "friends". Grandmasterka 01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of American Brit

What do we do now? All in favor of community ban of American Brit (talk · contribs) and any subsequent socks for death threats and other policy violations, say aye. Teke ^(talk) 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye! Death threats, sockpuppetry, and lying. Nishkid64 01:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I must concur. Death threats (or any kind of threats) cannot be tolerated on wiki. Long term threateners should be banned. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Community ban seems right. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye on my part for being a victim.--Dil 02:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Good enough for me... I've gone ahead and done it. Grandmasterka 02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, go ahead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.251.69.157 (talk • contribs).

Wow, ban indeed. --Wildnox(talk) 03:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This would seem to me to basically be a punitive block, which almost all recent successful RFA candidates say shouldn't be done. Since the User:American Brit account hasn't been used for vandalism, trolling, threats etc. - blocking him would be a punitive block. Eli Falk 00:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bans are different. And this isn't punitive, it's preventative, because concensus has determined his negative impact on this site isn't worth what his contributions give, basically. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User:1B6

User:1B6 has posted on my talk page ([3]) (3 days ago, but since the last time I checked Wikipedia) asking to be blocked. That user then vandalised their own userpage ([4]) and talkpage ([5]), and reverted the vandalism on their own userpage with a note implying that the account has been compromised ([6]). I'm reporting the issue here now, but as the user has not edited for almost 2 days this probably isn't urgent. --ais523 10:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

antivandalbot error report

Richard Branson's page was edited for the 2nd time today, text is full of attention-seeking vandalism. Should consider closing this page's editing.

User:Raspor

For several weeks now a highly aggressive and partisan new contributor, Raspor, has been causing serious disruption at Intelligent design, Talk:Intelligent design, Talk:Evolution, and Talk:Discovery Institute as well as various user talk pages. This prompted me to file a user conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor, where there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate against his behavior. He has dismissed the community's input and is now attempting to expand his disruption with petty trolling: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] He's exhausted the community's patience, as recent comments on my talk page and the RFC talk page indicate.

Considering the disruption he's caused over the last 72 hours and his unwillingness to moderate his behavior despite many past warnings and kindlier efforts, something needs to be done to get his attention. FeloniousMonk 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I support either a community ban in general (given his increasing incivility) or a topic ban on articles related to creationism and evolution in the broad sense. A week or so ago I favoured the latter, but he has now moved to trolling user talk pages. I am now in favour of a community ban. Guettarda 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. This guy has done very little but troll in the time he's been here. I recommend a lengthy block - maybe 72 hours, or even a week - and for it to be made absolutely clear to him that what he is doing is just not on. Mind you, if anyone wants to block indef, I won't be calling for your desysopping. I can just about envisage this fellow turning into a decent editor, but it's a stretch. Block now and the next time he trolls kick him out for good. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support a block. However, given that the user has only one previous block- a standard 3RR block, an indefinite block at this point seems uncalled for. I would recommend some block time between 24 to 96 hours. JoshuaZ 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Four days seems more than a bit light for the amount of disruption he's caused and the fact he simply shugged off his last block. FeloniousMonk 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If the user goes back to the same things after the block we can always immediately respond with another block. However, if someone blocks for a week I'm not going to object. JoshuaZ 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If we want to do this incrementally, then I would propose a couple weeks of a topic ban - tell him to stay away from articles related to evo-creo (and stop trolling user talk pages). Guettarda 22:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the matter here is exhausting community patience, which isn't something that builds from shorter to longer blocks, is it? There is, of course, a separate issue of his personal attacks and incivility, which probably needs a lot more attention than it has been given. Guettarda 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for one week to start, but if someone wants to block permanently I wouldn't object. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also wouldn't object to an indefblock. My favorite: "no one ever told me not to call him fellatio. i really dont remember that." No? Oh okay, that's better then. —bbatsell ¿? 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a community ban. He seems to be here only to disrupt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Send in the Balrog! Apart from that, I would support a community ban per a large amount of disruption and incivilty. Yuser31415 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Am I allowed to say he can fuck off yet? No? Kindly fuck off? No? Oh well. I'm off to make a new award, the Banstar, for banning those who are obviously not here to help. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, in this case you're allowed to say that. God knows I've been saying it under my breath a lot lately. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that the situation got so out of control that FeloniousMonk set up a whole separate page on Talk:Intelligent design for Raspor's and another editor's various rants and rapid-fire diatribes. I support FM's way of dealing with the situation, which had gotten well beyond reason. That page alone (Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections) is already at 137kB of content (a couple kB of which is due to my own attempts at response/explanation/conciliation, along with similar conciliatory attempts by several other users). Raspor has settled down just a bit of late on Talk:Intelligent design, and [s]he's mostly respected the request to post comments on the page that was set up to accommodate the various shotgun-style objections and accusations (though I see he's moved his activities to some other pages in the meantime). I'm in favor of a temporary block, perhaps a week, if only to give it a rest for awhile, take a forced wiki-break, and hopefully have Raspor come back (if [s]he wishes) with more of an orientation towards interactive discussion and contribution rather than just ranting. ... Kenosis 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC) I now see Jayjig appears to already have blocked Raspor for a week. Seems to me if [s]he's to be allowed to return after whatever the decision is among the admins, it should be with the caveat that a repetition of the pattern will result in a permanent block--just my opinion. ... Kenosis 04:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support this course of action - if this editor returns and makes one more personal attack, I support indef. The "fellatio" remark alone is beyond the pale, and one look at the talk page of his Rfc shows mutiple personal attacks and a total lack of interest in being even remotely civil. His goal seems disruption and trolling, with one or two productive edits buried amongst thousands of counter-productive hostile rants. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

After a quick skim of contributions - I've got to wonder why we spent so many manhours on such hopeless cases - editing wikipedia is an entitlement, it's not a right, yet I've seen less handwringing about sending people to prison (mind you that might say more about the UK Justice system..) --Charlesknight 11:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I believe that some of the comments in this section are incorrect and/or misleading. I question the claim that "there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate"; it seems that most if not all of the people objecting to him are on one side of the debate (and not his side, of course!). I'm not sure what the claim that "he simply shugged (sic) off his last block" means; he was new, didn't know about the three-reverts rule, but now does and hasn't reoffended on that. And although I agree he has been aggressive and abusive, it was largely in response to others insulting him or being abusive to him. Philip J. Rayment 13:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

25 to 3 against, and you're questioning the claim that there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate? And you're simply mistaken that most of the people objecting to him are not on his side of the topic, off the top of my head AvB and Filll are. Also, by your own reasoning here we should note that you happen to share his view on the topic as well, so I'm not sure where you think that line of argument will get you. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm a Christian and believe that the God of the Bible has created the universe, I'm not an ID proponent by any stretch of the imagination. Or any other type of creationist in the extreme US sense for that matter. I fully accept scientific findings supported by a robust body of evidence, which includes evolution. At any rate, the RfC has been sufficiently advertised so the virtually unanimous agreement with FM's assessment is highly significant. AvB ÷ talk 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that raspor seems to have had so much difficulty in reading and following policy, specifically WP:3RR which he was warned of twice (in the first instance not in the recommended format) and allowed to get to 8 reversions before being blocked, then treated it as an unfair personal attack that he'd not been allowed to argue against. As this comment shows he's still having difficulty in understanding what behaviour is expected of him: you've had some success in discussing some things with him, Philip, and it would be good if you could persuade him that he should fully comply with the rules so that an ending of the block is not immediately followed by a repetition of disruptive behaviour. ... dave souza, talk 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record I am in full support of this ban. Based on how he has responded poorly to even the numerous calm and friendly attempts to guide him I suspect he'll be back to his disruptive ways as soon as the ban is lifted. With that in mind I think he has no business editing any ID or ID related articles until he demonstrates an ability to respect other editors, Wiki policies. He could do that by limiting his edits to non-controversial subjects. Mr Christopher 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Raspor's edits to his talk since he's been blocked, I see he's not only continued the personal attacks/name calling, but escalated [14][15] and has made his talk page a locus of disruption drawing responses from a number of editors. Considering that even while in the pokey he's continued the very sort of disruption that landed him there in the first place, misusing the one priveledge he retained while blocked to turn his talk page into a source of friction, I think Raspor is a hopeless case and therefore a permanent block is the only thing that will put an end to the disruption. And sooner rather than later to spare the community any additional time and goodwill being wasted. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like another editor is encouraging him to initiate a freep fest (ala Free Republic) as a means of retribution for his "treatment" here [16]. How very odd. Mr Christopher 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've just cautioned both against that at Raspor's talk page. Amazingly bad advice from User:Geo.plrd. FeloniousMonk 18:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the first time Geo. has given improper advice - [17]. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The advice is even more worrying given the fact that Geo.plrd is active in advocacy, making him an important source of advice for confused or misconstrued editors. --HassourZain 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm worried about that as well. If there's any oversight going on at WP:AMA, this certainly the sort of behavior they need to be looking into. It should be brought up there I suppose. FeloniousMonk 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Uggggh. I spent far too much time reading up on this case. I've given Raspor a final warning about disruption, and after one more infraction I'll protect the page until the block expires. There's not much point to a block if the person continues the very behavior he or she was blocked for in the first place. -- Merope 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

From the records on Raspor's talk page the observer may note that I've done my best to try to get him to understand the purpose of Wikipedia fruitlessly. I cannot help but think that either he simply cannot understand it or refuses to bother with it, and as I said some time earlier, it's like trying to bail water from a boat using a dixie cup. If I weren't so incorrigibly hardheaded, I think I would have given up trying to help him a while ago. --HassourZain 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

HassourZain, you have demonstrated an amazing patience with raspor and your good faith efforts to be helpful have been noted by me. Mr Christopher 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

HassourZain's efforts are 1st class through and through. It's people like him that make up for the shenanigans of the others and keeps contributing here worthwhile. FeloniousMonk 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, guys. :) --HassourZain 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My thanks too for your admirable and patient words. One problem that came up earlyish was that when I requested raspor to stop trolling, he took this as a personal attack and repeatedly complained about it. The WP:TROLL article definition is dependant on motive, which of course is impossible to judge, and so is useless for defining behaviour which is what's important. The WP:DE article focusses on article edits rather than talk page disruption. Should these guidelines be changed or clarified? .. dave souza, talk 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"...when I requested raspor to stop trolling, he took this as a personal attack and repeatedly complained about it." That's typical 'victim bully' behavior. Dean Dad, in writing about The College Administrator's Survival Guide, by C.K. Gunsalus (Harvard U Press, 2006), notes that Gunsalus distinguishes between traditional, assertive bullies, who throw their weight around with bluster and force, and 'victim bullies,' who use claims of having been wronged to gain leverage over others. He goes on to write "that unlike simple passive-aggression, victim bullies use accusations as weapons, and ramp up the accusations over time. Unlike a normal person, who would slink away in shame as the initial accusations are discredited, a victim bully lacks either guilt or shame, honestly believing that s/he has been so egregiously wronged in some cosmic way that anything s/he does or says is justified in the larger scheme of things. So when the initial accusations are dismissed, the victim bully’s first move is a sort of double-or-nothing, raising the absurdity and the stakes even more. Victim bullies thrive in the no-man's-land created by the deadly combination of slow and cumbersome processes, and failure of administerial nerve. I've had some experience with these, and I can say without reservation that they are, by far, my least favorite editors to wrangle. It's not just that they're unpleasant and batshit crazy; they're self-righteously unpleasant and batshit crazy. They're implausibly persistent. Gunsalus makes the correct point that the key to defeating victim bullies is the classic administrative pincer movement of process-and-time. Easier said than done, but still right." FeloniousMonk 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, FM. On his talk page Raspor coninues to demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of fundamental Wikipedia editing policies as well as being unfamiliar with intelligent design in general (as evidenced here). This is something he has shown since day one. I suspect he has either not yet studied any of our policies or has decided they are of no use to him. This makes working with him impossible. If he'd spend some time actually learning our policies his disruptions would go down by 99% or so. With this is mind, what happens after his block is lifted? I mean from an administrative standpoint, I pretty much know what to expect from him but I'm curious if/when he starts acting out again, will a new Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report need to be submitted or will we utilize this existing one? And will there be an administrator assigned to monitor his behaviour? Mr Christopher 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, judging by his comments on his talk page [[18] my attempt to answer his question(s) seems to have sent him into a mental tail-spin. He seems to be looking for the word "theory" now in every article and inisting we change the other articles to read like the ID one. How can we work with such a person when he begins posting on the article talk page again and not just on his own personal talk page? Mr Christopher 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer the "what next" question - it all depends on how Raspor acts after the block runs out. If he decides to act within accepted norms, then he will probably be given a second chance. If he continues to act as he has been, then I'm sure someone will re-block him. Guettarda 19:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I admit only spot checking his contribs, but this seems like a case where someone, a subject expert, feels his areas of expertise are being poorly represented by the articles and subject novices who are "equal" with him in the WP system. The user is thus getting frustrated and some apparent mob rule against him by other editors is been making matters worse. CyberAnth 21:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure who's who in your analogy. However, raspor has shown no expertise, rather an uncanny ability to play on people's desire to explain things, then pick on points with a remarkable resemblance to standard creationist arguments and interpret or ignore the answers to emerge triumphantly having proved his point. He did it with Talk:Evolution of cetaceans#Again overstatement of evidence, and even confined to his user page, here he goes again. .. dave souza, talk 21:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make the original post more clear. CyberAnth 21:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read through Talk:Evolution of cetaceans#Again overstatement of evidence to the end of the talk page, you'll see that raspor keeps any expertise well concealed. .. dave souza, talk 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth, sorry, I may be dense because I am still not following you. Who is the subject expert you mentioned and what subject is their expertise? Thanks. Mr Christopher 22:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Ekkenekepen

I've indefinitely blocked Ekkenekepen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His entire recent contribution history here consists of complaining about the German Wikipedia, where he was apparently banned, mainly on User talk:Jimbo Wales. This wild accusation is the final straw for me. He's not even making a pretense of being here for the encyclopaedia - he has a history before that but nothing particularly useful.

He's already had one week's block for legal threats, and has a long block log on deWiki, including an impressive four indefinites (the ones marked unbeschränkt), the one before last for "massives Stalking (Benutzerdiskussionsseiten, Artikeldiskussionen, Zusammenfassungszeilen, Emailbelästigung, persönliche Belästigung, Klarnamenveröffentlichung)" - "massive stalking (user talk pages, article talk pages, edit summaries, email harrassment, personal attacks, publication of users' real names)". Do we want or need this person here? No we don't. Posted here for review etc. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if he was trolling in the end. This seems like a genuine problem – [19] (I can't understand German, but are they asking for donations for something else, other than Wikipedia?) — Nearly Headless Nick 14:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If Jimbo's page is any indication, sounds like he thinks wikimedia donations are being used inappropriately. Syrthiss 14:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The user appears to be asking for donations to himself, yes. The notice has been there for a while, out of interest I'm going to see if there's anything on his talk page about it. However, the German Wikipedia is a big boy and can look after itself. I'm fairly certain that if there is a problem, a banned troll disrupting talk pages on a completely different wiki with no jurisdiction over what he's complaining about is not the solution. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Penta's donation notice was added on 19th December, and as far as I can see there's nothing about it on his talk page. If you want to ask him about it, he speaks advanced English. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good block. Also would support removing content on his user and talk pages, to reduce soapboxing. Syrthiss 14:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Be on the lookout for dynamic IP addresses evading the block, he's used dynamic IPs in the past. – Chacor 14:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the user page with {{indefblockeduser}} - I don't see a pressing need to remove what's currently there on the talk page, but if he decides to use it to continue his soapboxing I'll probably protect it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusations are baseless. He said some kind i do not know exactly what was going on. Good block. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Posting following an unblock-en-l request by this user. Seems like there's a little more going on, here, than a simple open-shut case. But it looks to me like there's been a good amount of disruption, without much in the way of mitigating contributions to the project as a whole. All else aside, if he's banned or blocked from de.wikipedia, bringing the same issues over to en.wikipedia hardly seems appropriate, no? I feel like I may be missing something, but not sure what. Luna Santin 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you figure out what you're concerned about, I'll try to set your mind at rest. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

More ranks and hierarchies

While we're on the subject of bureaucratic instances within Wikipedia, I found the Association of Member's Advocates (AMA) as an apparent example of overcomplexity. It has an elected coordinator, three elected deputy coordinators, rather formalized meetings and an apparent strong reliance on the letter of policy. I'm not sure how effective the AMA is, but perhaps debureaucraticization would help? >Radiant< 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, both the co-ordinator and the deputy co-ordinators were basically co-opted into their positions. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the role of the co-ordinators in the AMA is merely to co-ordinate. We've never had (and, I hope, never will have) any sort of veto on anything, or any powers over and above those of others - it seems that our role is more to advise and deal with queries to the association than to decide things in closed meetings (Esperanza) or to exercise any kind of special veto. I believe that we used to have our meetings on IRC, until timezones got in the way, and now use a Wikipedia page, which, depsite its apparent complexity, does serve the job of discussion well. Finally, as we advise on policy as "advocates", we do ned to try to stick to it and have at least some procedures in place :) (I should say, I am strongly opposed to overbureaucraticization, and would immediately leave the AMA if it went in the direction of Esperanza. Fortunately, we're very open). Martinp23 21:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

...and back to MOTD

Sorry if this seems to be beating a dead horse, but thoughts on the readdtion of "co-ordinators"? [20] is of interest. I can tell you, if that "special veto" comes back, this whole thing will get MfD'ed quick smart. I wouldn't have worried, but [21] kinda makes me suspicious that this is still very heirachal. Thoughts on the "co-ordinators"? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the users keep doing this. Geo should be warned and strictly reminded of what WP is and what it is not. – Chacor 00:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Special veto will not return. Geo. 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of those mottos concern me - I don't know how many people actually read that page but some appear to be come-ons to trolls/vandals - something we should avoid. --Charlesknight 19:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Radiant!'s use of CFD bots

Radiant! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added three categories to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working in the deletion section even though the renaming had already been processed: [22], the result of which the three categories are now empty. This behaviour seems outrageous, and all help is welcome in undoing this act. Tim! 18:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to consider Radiant's comments here:

Per the CFD discussion above, these three were renamed from "actors" to "cast members", to exclude the many one-time guest actors and focus instead on the actual cast. However, 90% of the members of the cats are in fact those one-time guest actors. So it would be easiest to have a bot depopulate them, and repop them from the existing articles on the series.

In this context, I think it does make sense to empty the articles and restart them from scratch, making sure that only regular cast members are listed. The category for Murder She Wrote had over 500 articles in it; anyone who had ever appeared in even one segment in a single episode! That doesn't seem notable enough for categorization into a cast member category. --Cyde Weys 18:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A bot can easily depopulate a category, but it cannot repopulate it with the required items. It should be left to editors to select the members of the category through normal editing. I had already pruned the X-Files category down but now it is empty. Tim! 18:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the X-Files stuff then, but for the other two categories, it's less work to empty them out automatically and just add in the ones that really need it than to remove it from the hundreds of pages that don't need it. It's not like cast lists for TV shows are hard to come by. Also, I don't think you should be labeling Radiant! a vandal, so I'm fixing the tag. --Cyde Weys 18:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I was taken aback at seeing Radiant! acused of "abusing" anything. -- Donald Albury 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hell yeah! I couldn't imagine myself using the word "abuse" and "Radiant!" in the same sentence. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I'll go and add myself to CAT:ROUGE now. This is a really problematic tendency of WIkipedia: far too many editors start screaming "OMG! Abuse! Vandlaism!!!1" whenever something doesn't go their way, and far too many editors believe that disputes are best resolved by vehemently attacking those who disagree with them. We are way too tolerant of both. >Radiant< 09:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we are too tolerant of the general lack of tolerance? :) I've edited the header again, because I think abuse is a bit strong too, made me jump out of my seat too. Steve block Talk 10:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I see Radiant! has totally ignored the substantive issue, that he "used badly or wrongly" the CFD process to empty categories. Tim!

You may want to consider the policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. This allows us to circumvent procedural flaws when doing so aids us in building the encyclopedia. That addresses the substantive issue. Steve block Talk 17:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Are you alleging that Radiant! damaged Wikipedia, or are you just complaining that Radiant! did not follow your interpretation of what the process should be? A lot of us think that 'process' is subservient to 'doing the right thing' for Wikipedia. That's what ignoring all rules is about. If 'process' is getting in the way of improving Wikipedia, then do the right thing outside of 'process'. Of course, if enough contributors disagree that the action was for the good of Wikipedia, there will be consequences. But then, that can happen even when everything is done within process. 'Following process' and 'improving the encyclopedia' often overlap, but not always. -- Donald Albury 17:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

IAR only applies to improving the encyclopedia, not massive deletion because he disagrees with the existence of certain categories and does not want to go through them to check the articles individually to see if they should be members or not. Other people are willing to do such tasks, and it was hardly so urgent that if they stayed there a few days the world will end. Tim! 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I thoroughly disagree with your characterisation of Radiant's actions. I think Radiant acted in good faith. His actions in emptying the categories fall within the scope of being bold. I'm unclear where the massive deletion occurred, I'm now unclear what you believe the substantive issue is, and I'm unclear as to how this is a matter for consideration here. It now appears to be a content dispute. Your frustration perhaps stems from the fact that you have different opinions on how the end result should have been achieved. That happens on Wikipedia sometimes, I think it is inevitable on such a collaborative project with often contradictory guidances and practises where the goal of producing an encyclopedia of a neutral point of view is enshrined as the most important consideration. There are many different ways of dealing with such frustration, see the tips offered at meta. Also, have a look at the dispute resolution process. Anyway, I hope some of that helps, Steve block Talk 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) The actual text of WP:BOLD in Exceptions is:

• "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles."
• "Although it is generally fine to be bold in updating articles, being bold in updating or creating categories and templates can often be a bad thing." and the text continues to explain the possible harm. DGG 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, the outcome had been determined by a discussion so the exception doesn't apply. There was a consensus that a large number of articles were to be removed from the category, and Radiant was bold in his method of achieving the outcome, and the guideline is summed up as being "If in doubt, fix it." But I retract the link to the bold guideline. Frankly, I'm going to withdraw from this part of the discussion which is becoming utterly removed from the original point. Steve block Talk 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It could hardly decribed as "boldly updating articles" as Radiant! took not a single step to repopulate the articles or tell anyone what he did, or even mark that the categories using {{popcat}} or similar. He basically left the mess to be cleared up by others. Tim! 19:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, you're really clutching at straws here. First you call me a vandal, but it turns out that WP:VAND proves you wrong. Then you say I abused CFD, but that's also wrong since I used the CFD process for the outcome of a CFD debate. Then you accuse me of acting unilaterally, but that is wrong again since consensus was reached through discussion. And now you allege that I wouldn't have helped clean up, which is once more wrong, and I would have cleaned it up by now if there hadn't been a certain person demanding a response to a plethora of spurious accusations. Now do you have any other wild accusations or can we get back to doing something useful? >Radiant< 08:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's you who are wrong, you did not you did not use the Cfd bots to process the outcome of the CFD debate, you used it to empty out a category which had already been renamed. The result of the Cfd was to rename and that had already happened. If it was so urgent to clear the category using a bot, how comes it was not urgent to repopulate the category? That's a nice handy defence, btw, oh I would have got round to doing it... but now I'm upset so won't do it. Tim! 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim! Why did you post here, and not ask Radiant! directly on his talk page what he was doing and why? I find Radiant! to be a pretty agreeable fellow, and he usually responds to questions on his talk page (though recently he's been ignoring mine). -- Samuel Wantman 09:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on Radiant!'s talk page but he just removed it without replying... infer from that what you will. Tim! 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it had something to do with the fact that you posted that to his talk page only six or seven minutes before you accused him of 'abusing' CfD here. -- Donald Albury 22:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Someone please check this out User talk:Cwiki - feel free to unblock if you think it's the right thing. Guy (Help!) 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• That looks a tricky one. No edits for ages then not long after a block pops back in again. I've declined the unblock request, I can see how you drew the conclusion, and I tend to draw the same conclusion myself. The user indicates they have no desire to edit Wikipedia, so it seems a little bit like a point being made here. Steve block Talk 11:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is still demeaning and discourteous to keep the user blocked merely because they indicate that they have no desire to edit Wikipedia. It could be that the user actually still wants to edit Wikipedia, but would rather not admit it (I have been in a similar situation before), or that the user merely wants not to have such a strike against their name. I'm rather inclined, despite my lack of significant knowledge of the Joan of Arc vandal, to think that Cwiki is not the vandal. Cwiki's IP address puts the connection as being from Australia, not Virginia, which is consistent with the user's userpage. The user's bias seems to be quite different from that of AWilliamson, and there are many style differences between the two users. Essentially, it seems to me that they are either completely different people, or Cwiki is a sock puppet of AWilliamson for the purpose of either subtly inserting pro-Catholic/French bias while purporting to be inserting anti-Catholic/French bias or aggressively asserting an anti-Catholic bias in order to stir up those with AWilliamson's bias. These sock puppet ideas seem overly complex and unlikely to me, though I will admit again that I am not very familiar with the case. As a side note though, what happened to Cwiki's capitalisation!? Also, in response to Steve block, is it not possible that Cwiki was using the account for reading Wikipedia, but not editing, and then was greeted one day with a New Messages notice that led to the block notice? --Philosophus ^T 05:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Philosophus, if you want to lift the block, feel free to do so. I reviewed it and weighed it all up and decided not to. I may well have been wrong. The block is still reviewable. I do take objection to the notion that I have refused the unblock request wholly on the grounds that the user indicates that they have no desire to edit Wikipedia. But please, review it yourself and make your own decision. I did note it was a tricky one. And you're right, it is possible that the user has been reading all this while whilst never editing. I've merely attempted to act in the best interests of Wikipedia. I would ask, though, that you note whichever decision you choose to make at the user's talk page to aid future reviewers of the request. Oh, never mind, I've just checked your user page and I see you are an alternative account, so it's unlikely you can unblock. I really can't stand much more of this, to be perfectly honest. I feel like smashing the fucking computer in. I'm sorry. Steve block Talk 14:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If it was open-and-shut, I would not have posted here. My IP is currently in Phladelphia, so that can't possibly be me (I edit from one of two static IPs in England). Or can it? Anyway, it was the long period of inactivity followed by edits to Joan of Arc articles just when a block was active that roused my suspicions. I am a nasty suspicious bastard and I could be wrong, hence the post here. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my review. It seems I don't have the nous to make a decent review. Steve block Talk 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Profane comment

User:68.195.132.253 just left a profane comment on the talk page for Axis powers of World War II [23]. This user has been blocked before for doing the same thing. Cla68 08:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The comment was reverted out by ArmadilloFromHell (talk · contribs), and I've added it to WP:AIV given this user has been warned/blocked/warned again/continues to do it. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Next time I'll use WP:AIV. I wasn't sure if it should go to AIV or not since it was left on the talk page, not the main article page. Cla68 04:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:86.42.159.149

User:86.42.159.149 is a single purpose account engaging in edit warring at Plastic Paddy which is up for AfD. His /her edits mirror User:Vintagekits' edits, and I suspect it is the same user just not logged into their account so as not to violate 3R. User:86.42.159.149 has already broken 3R, and I have put notice on the user's talk page. The user then left this on my user page:

Why do you insist in putting silly pov into the article. The term is only used by the odd journalist, and you know what they are like. I have never heard the term used once here in Ireland, and the article does not reflect that truth. I have a dynamic IP address, so am not at all concerned about being blocked. 86.42.159.149 17:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC) diff

This overlaps into so many things, I am uncertain how to proceed. - WeniWidiWiki 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I made the article better and I pulled out all of the POV, yet WeniWidiWiki insists in reverting me back to the old POV version. Unfortunately, WP has to sometimes suffer as a result a peevish few! I have edited 3 times, so no rules broken ;-))Thanks. 86.42.159.149 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd that a single purpose account with less than 15 edits knows wikipedia policy and nomenclature so well, and apparently keeps an eye on the admins' notice board as well. - WeniWidiWiki 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I am on the office computer today and cannot leave a footprint. Sorry. 86.42.159.149 18:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you have only 50 edits in total to your credit. You seem to know a lot about socks. Are you an ex-sockpuppet? I guess that you might be just that! 86.42.159.149 18:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just seen this - its not a sockpuppet of mine!--Vintagekits 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User admits to using IP edits for disruption - compare the above post by IP editor User:86.42.159.149 to this one by User:86.42.146.214:

Why do you insist in filling WP with silly pejoratives that only comedians use. These terms, like "Miserly Scotsman" etc should only be in the WikiDic!! 86.42.146.214 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)diff

After a few exchanges on my talk page, I post this response in which I give diffs of user's disruptive edits on other articles. He responds with an admission that he only uses his screen name "when sober" and edits under the IPs at other times:

I have a user name, and you are not getting it. I only use it when I'm sober, HeHeHe. diff.

I then warned him about the WP:SOCK policy against using "Good hand, bad hand" accounts: diff, and posted the warning on his talk page as well: diff. If you look at the history, this user was also warned by an admin to cease disruptive edits: diff and: diff. After the sock warning he became scarce for a while, but is now back repeating the same pattern. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

CommentYou should go to talk page, and discuss things there. I don't have the foggiest what you are talking about.86.42.159.149 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I cant read many of those links you added and they are "secure" - is he still accusing me of having the sockpuppet or has someone else owned up to it?--Vintagekits 19:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

86 is not a single-purpose account. He's been editing for a long time, at least since April 2006, through a whole host of Eircom DSL addresses, which is why I think of him as my anonymous Eircom fan. Whether he's been editing longer than that depends on whether he has, as claimed, another active account. If he has, I don't know what it is. Jerricco (talk • contribs) was probably him, but that account is inactive now. Not being vindictive, and seeing no reason why anonymous editors should be persecuted, I'll leave it at that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This particular IP is a single-purpose account. Look at the contributions. Since the person is editing without creating a username, how do you know that the other IP from the same block is even the same person? Furthermore, this IP has voted in an AfD and then admitted that he /she uses multiple accounts. Did his /her registered username also vote in the AfD? - WeniWidiWiki 21:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to work till late tonight. I see a bunch of editors' accusing two other editors of being socks. And all I can see are hysterical accusations being made. Really really sad. All I can say to you is this, go and deal with POV and fix things on WP. It's obvious that your POV is being questioned, and it reveals much. 86.42.159.149 21:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• To recap, I did three edits, I have never seen such a stir. 86.42.159.149 20:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

False - any competent editor can look at your contributions and the edit history of Plastic Paddy to refute this. Furthermore, I ask you to cease and desist removing references in the entry until there is consensus on the talk page.You are not editing in the spirit of consensus. - WeniWidiWiki 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Those references were stuffed into the article today,seemingly without much thought, and they are quite meaningless. They don't relate to the sentence or the <<citation need>> quest. They also broke WP:EL rules on some points. Two of them are still there and one of those is modified to WP standards. 86.42.159.149 21:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:86.42.159.149, please do not misrepresent the positions of other editors by altering their comments. I have reverted your alterations to WWW's statement. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Kathryn NicDhàna what are you talking about? I made 4 incremental edits and reverted 2 times. The article is much improved now, and I and other editors are happier with it. And I hope you are too. 86.42.159.149 21:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment struck, misread the diff. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Gundam kettle calls the pot black

How these people dare complain about me tagging their articles for deletion and then call it a WP:POINT violation is beyond me. When I tell them about they call it incivil. Incivil? Here are some diffs and quotes from the WP:GUNDAM talk page.

• Vicious attacks, the obvious target is myself and the other nominators for deletion.
• And yet more attacks, against presumably myself.
• And yet more in exactly the same vein.
• Unfounded accusations of "bullying".
• A clear assumption of bad faith.
• Patent incivility. If I'd said that to one of the Musikfabrik lot ArbCom would probably have kicked me out.
• Incivility so bad it equates to trolling.
• Attack by implication.
• Staggering personal attack. Since when did that become acceptable? We put Giano on civility parole for far better than this lot. I lament his lot, if this selection are now acceptable.
• More incivility and attacks.

• Choice quote, out of the whole bundle:I "have decided not to do anything for now, there are stuff that I wanted to merge and clean up anyway. Spending time with those irrational deletionist is just wasting my time, that is what they are seeking: editors in this project ending up with no time to improve the article and at the end making them able to try to nominate desembling this project itself. They do not even want to follow rules in WP:FICT that minor characters should get a list. (The most unreasonable nom would be the RX-78 which is already a list) They can shovel WP:ICANBULLYYOU all they want, the articles can be recreated one by one as long as we can create a process of deciding which should be kept and what should be in a long list(also what lists should there be). All the articles go through this project's editor's inspection, rewritten to a point where any of those AfD is just going to make them look more irrational and vandal/troll like. Join me, let them have their small victory over old and outdated cruff, and we will gain back a larger ground later and laugh at their short-sightedness. For the admin up there, would you kindly try to be the closing admin of RX-78 Gundam and let them know what is the realistic side of the world they do not understand.".

• While I understand that ANI is not a forum for dispute resolution, and I do not wish to see anybody blocked, I must request, if this has not been done already, that User:Mythsearcher and User:HellCat86 are given firm warnings from a neutral admin for personal attacks and incivility. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• The behavior coming from many of the parties to this dispute—and yes, I do mean people on both sides—has been quite disgraceful. Everyone needs to step back and stop with the attacks, the mockery, the hysterical proclamations, and the provocation; we are all Wikipedians here, and presumably that says something both about our shared purpose—to create a great encyclopedia—and the kind and thoughtful way we approach disagreements with our fellow editors. Wikipedia is not a game that we "win" by fighting with each other. Kirill Lokshin 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have recently found out about all the warring on the gundam articles from WPANIME, and i have to point out these 2 pages [24] and [25], it appears to me that numerous editors have made it their life goal to rid the site of any gundam related articles. An admin def needs to step in here and settle this. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And that is in itself another assumption of bad faith. "Rid the site of any gundam related articles"? No, that is not true in the slightest. There are numerous valid articles that could be written about Gundam, just not these ones about obscure fictional weapons. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, if you're feeling under attack as it is, it's hard to find another interpretation of "To Do: Nominate every single article in [6+ categories] for deletion." (And yes, that was not Moreschi, to be clear.) I'm thinking it's something of a personal joke, myself, but if I were heavily invested in the articles, I might not see it that way. Regardless, after taking a quick look, I'd suggest tea all around. Shimeru 23:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Quit bogarting my tea! Kyaa the Catlord 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• (reply to Kirill Lokshin) Heh. Weary irony. I know this isn't a war. I'm not trying to beat anybody. I have not been incivil or violated any other policies. This is simply about a load of articles that I think need to go - the community agrees, judging by the votes at AFD thus far - and some individuals' reactions to the attempts of the community to get rid of these articles. That reaction has been often unacceptable. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• MythSearcher's language is somewhat, er, confrontational, but it's clear that he's willing to accept some reasonable changes:

"Ditch the detail spec, list only the height of the unit and main weapons types, link to mahq and Gundam wikia so that readers can find those specs." [26]

"I am all for merging and deleting things like R-Jayja and such" [27],

Meanwhile, Moreschi has nominated several Gundam-related articles for deletion, but he's voted keep on RX-78 Gundam. Hopefully, that should send a message to Gundam supporters that there's no massive campaign to wipe every mention of Gundam from Wikipedia. If everyone toned down the language just a bit, I'm sure a fair agreement could be reached. Comments like "ignorant arrogant deletionists" are not helpful at this time. Neither are comments that a user plans to "nominate every single article" in 6 Gundam categories for deletion. Quack 688 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a case study in how not to deal with "the community" as a whole. Moreschi, whether your tagging / cleanup campaign is appropriate under Wikipedia rules or not (and at a quick glance, I agree that it is), if you stir up a previously calm situation into a largescale, many hostile responses hornets nest, that's an indicator that your tactics and approach to what you did were inappropriate. It's percieved as hostile intent of high order, nigh-on blatant bad faith vandalism, by many subsets of Wikipedia's contributors if you go in and make widespread nominations like that, even if the articles are by all rights deletable by wider community standards. Go more slowly and talk to the editors in that sub-area more before you make such widespread change proposals next time? A crisis avoided is a lot more happy beers. Georgewilliamherbert 07:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a competition to see how many violations of WP:AGF can be made on a single issue? Here's another example from only a few hours ago [28]. That sort of personal attack has just got to stop. And remember, none of this would have happened if WP:GUNDAM and associated editors had tried to follow WP policies in the first place.--Folantin 09:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please keep in mind that WP:GUNDAM, which is getting all the heat for this, only was "created" less than a month ago in its current form. It is NOT TO BLAME for the articles it has inherited with histories going back to 2004 and potentially earlier. Want to argue AGF some more? Blaming those who are innocent for creating craptastic articles, calling for the project to be burnt to the ground, taunting of the Project on its discussion page.... This is a freaking mess period. Kyaa the Catlord 10:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, I was aware of that. That's why I mentioned "WP:GUNDAM and associated editors". It doesn't change the fact that the WP:GUNDAM Talk Page is rife with incivility and members of the project continue to ignore WP:NPA.--Folantin 10:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly though, why do are you escalating the drama? Do you want Mythsearcher blocked? This wasn't drama on the WP:GUNDAM page, this took some searching to find.... Do you have a goal in finding these "incidents" and reporting them? Moreschi is being generous and is working with the Project in this matter, Myth's outburst is unfortunate, but honestly, what good is done by bringing up every instance where a comment in placed in the heat of passion? Kyaa the Catlord 10:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've taken a better look at where you linked to, I find you went to ned scott's page. Ned Scott has been nothing but neutral, civil and a good example in all this.... I'm not sure what is going on, but damn man, it doesn't look nice. Kyaa the Catlord 11:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Read what I actually linked to. This has nothing to do with anything Ned Scott has done. I quite clearly linked to Mythsearcher's comment on Ned Scott's talk page, which goes like this: "It is just impossible to assume good faith in the actions taken by the deletionist. What is currently happening is just like the dark ages, burn them, its something we have never heard of before, it must be heresy. With people making up rules, saying nothing counts as sources, and trying to blame people who have just a little more than a month to work on hundreds of articles, they are being dicks themselves. Especially the one who nominated dozens of articles during another AfD process saying that one is nominated as a precedent to delete others..." If that doesn't violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, I don't know what does. This user has already had ample warning. If this continues, admins should take action. --Folantin 11:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I point out that describing the actions being taken by others is not a personal attack. Calling them "dicks", is... I'll refactor that away, per WP:NPA. This is what is supposed to be done in these cases, not calling for blocks or bans. Kyaa the Catlord 12:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"...describing the actions being taken by others is not a personal attack" sounds like hairsplitting to me, but I'll let that slide for now. Blocks and bans are for repeat offenders, which Mythsearcher will be if he doesn't knock it off. He's had fair warning. If he stops now, then fine. The whole atmosphere of incivility and failure to assume good faith at the WP:GUNDAM talk page (and elsewhere) has got to end. I'm glad you seem to be working through an improvement campaign with Moreschi. Keep it civil and get everyone else to keep it civil and this shouldn't be a problem any more. --Folantin 12:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the use of the word "dick" in the quoted reference was a response to Ned warning Myth that he should cool down. Things are hot and Myth's venting. He's been warned, he's made constructive edits and not made further heated statements since this one. He's actually taken steps to work with Moreschi to better handle the crapload of bad articles the WikiProject inheritted.... This seems, to me, to be a non-issue at this point. Kyaa the Catlord 12:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use image crusade

Oden (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) seems to be on a crusade against the use of fair-use images. He doesn't give reasons for removing them from articles, beyond a vague gesture to WP:FUC. When I challenged him on one of them, his reply was that it served only a decorative purpose,apparently on the grounds that it was in an infobox, though what grounds he had for that claim was unclear.

Could someone who's familiar with this issue look to see if his actions are, as I strongly suspect, unsupported by policy? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking through a sample of Oden's edits, he is correctly identifying images which probably fail WP:FAIR. Usual practice has been to tag those images as being {{Replaceable fair use}}. The image would then be deleted after a week. Reference to the deleted image would then be removed from the article. By removing them first, Oden is also tagging them as orphaned, when he is the one who orphaned them. Although it does seem against the usual etiquette in these areas, its hard to see a policy violation on his part. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 19:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of those edits are correct, while others are questionable. I've suggested to Oden that he discuss removing infobox images on talk pages before simply doing so: it is only his opinon that they serve a merely decorative purpose there. Mangojuice^talk 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; he seems to be following normal procedure now. (WJB: I didn't suggest that he was violating policy, only deleting material without the support of the policy that he claimed to be following.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My experience has shown that such images invariably will be deleted, so leaving them in the article will simply created many red links at some point in the future. Also, the uploader in question has uploaded over 50 copyrighted images in a short period of time. Since there are so many images, and they will all without a doubt be deleted (see the last paragraph of {{Promophoto}} and WP:FUC criterion #1) then there is no need to keep them in the article. The alternative is that OrphanBot does the job in seven days, but my experience is that users do not appreciate multiple warning messages (see User:Jtdirl). In the same manner I only post one warning on the user's talk page, even if I have tagged multiple images. If the deletion is contested I have no problem with the image returning to the article, but then the tag {{subst:refu-c}} has to be attached to the caption. --Oden 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

leaving them in the article will simply created many red links at some point in the future. If people actually made sure an image wasn't in use, and removed links BEFORE deleting, as they should reasonably be expected to, that would not be a concern. I have found, without even looking, at least 4 cases where this happened in the last week, and shouldn't have (all of which just happened to be {{Replaceable fair use}}, which seems to land itself to this by sheer value of removing a need to post a notice in the article, as is often request for IFD). Circeus 00:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm speaking up here because if Oden is guilty, I almost certainly am also guilty. In my case, I will remove a fair-use image being used in violation of WP:FU solely to depict a living person immediately upon noticing it if the image was newly added. On images which have been there a while, I'll leave it for the full seven days. On an image that is a blatant violation of WP:FU, there's no reason not to remove it immediately. Note that there's nothing in policy that demands the image stay the full seven days. In fact, at least one of the bots if I remember correctly (and I may not) will remove images after four or five days of the image being marked. Anyway, I haven't taken a look at Oden's recent log but every time I've checked his removals in the past, they have been of images which obviously violate WP:FU. In my opinion, it is a good idea to remove obvious violations of Wikipedia policy as soon as they are discovered. Mel Etitis, an editor I have a great deal of respect for, may not be up-to-date on WP:FU and the problems with using fair-use images to depict living people. Jimbo Wales has spoken up on this topic several times though of course, that shouldn't be taken as a dictate from a deity. Note, though, that an image in an infobox does serve merely to depict the person. I wouldn't say that such use is purely decorative but it is a clear violation of WP:FU to use a fair-use image there. --Yamla 01:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing links without giving reasons

User:Venu62 removed relevant external links from a host of articles placed by anon editors, without mentioning proper reasons. I see these as destructive edits - [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]

Admins please opine and warn the user not to indulge in frivolous and destructive edits. Thanks. Also see the same user's other edits that I've mentioned here #User_removing_license_tags_and_replacing_them_with_no_license_messages ­ Kris (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

He removed them as linkspam. Is there any particular reason why this is destructive and needs to be brought up here (e.g., WP:POINT violation, POV-pushing, etc.)? Perhaps you two could use some time away from each other if not

. Patstuart^talk|edits 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How do those links qualify as linkspam? I dont see any spam. Those links contain a lot of relevant information and are pertinent to those articles. ­ Kris (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I had a quick scan at the first link - it does not seem to have any sources and any of the relevent information contained within should already be in a good quality wikipedia article. In addition, it's partly a tourist directory of hotels and where to stay - where's the encylopedic value in that? Maybe linkspam is a bit harsh but I can see why he removed it. --Charlesknight 12:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Of the 14 edits 59.92.112.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made, 13 are the Spamming of tamilnadu.ind.in within the course of one half hour. Additionaly tamilnadu.ind.in has quite a bit of advertising and banners for the amount of content, which may qualify it as a Link normally to be avoided. Notably, the site is activly seeking promotional advertising see [36]. Seems to qualify as External link spamming.IMHO --Hu12 12:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough the same owner of tamilnadu.ind.in with adsense account 9291737033108347 owns indiaandindians.com, with quite a history of abusing of Wikipedia.

Spam sock accounts

• 59.92.118.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.92.113.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.92.112.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.92.112.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Domain Name:TAMILNADU.IND.IN
Created On:08-Dec-2006 10:28:26 UTC <--- would explain the promotional additions
Organization:indiaandindians.com
--Hu12 13:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Gee, what a suprise, more by the same owner pub-9291737033108347, heres the list (I'm sure there is more).

• tamilnadu.ind.in

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

• indiaandindians.com

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

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

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

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

• ooty.ind.in

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

• kodaikanal.org

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

• srirangam.co.in

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

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

• trichy.ind.in

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

--Hu12 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hu. I suppose you found these out because probably you are an admin? Thanks anyway. ­ Kris (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Illegitimate use of userspace?

Just had the following posted at WP:RFCN..

RE: Yuske Uramishi (talk · contribs), Heie Austin (talk · contribs), Kevin Austin (talk · contribs), and Bully Austin (talk · contribs)

Not certain that this is the place for this, as I dont find the usernames offensive, but it seems that these user's userpages are being used as faux articles for small time wrestlers. I'm not sure what should be done, but I hardly think that this constitutes appropriate use. —damnreds (☠|☠) 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As each user listed above seems to pretty much only have edits to their own "faux article" on their respective userpages, would a {{db-nouser}} tag be appropriate, or should it go to MfD? Crimsone 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't use {{db-nouser}} as the users do exist. It's for if I created something like User:ThisUserDoesNotExist and saved. I noticed Yuske Uramishi blanked the talk page of Kevin Austin after he had a 'welcome', so something strange is afoot! I'd concur with MfD. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Great - thanks. I've just listed all four at MfD under one nom. Crimsone 11:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits' sockpuppet tag

Hi, this user has a confimed sockpuppet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vintagekits

It has been canvassing for a mediation discussion that User:Vintagekits is involved in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage), and commenting on this as well, as if it were a seperate user. Reading Wikipedia: sock puppetry, I see it states that:

"If an account has been shown to be a sock puppet used for policy violations, then it may be identified as such, by adding [SockpuppetProven] to the user page and [sockblock] to the talk page of the sock puppet account" (Wikipedia: sock puppetry)

I have added this to the sockpuppet (User:DownDaRoad), but can you confirm I did so correctly? Also, I attempted to add "Sockpuppeteerproven" to Vintagekit's user page in line with:

"The original or best-known account of a user that operates sock puppets may be tagged with {{Sockpuppeteer}}. If the sockpuppeteer has at least one proven sockpuppet, tag the user page with {{Sockpuppeteerproven}} instead." (Wikipedia: sock puppetry)

Am I ok in doing this? Vintagekits has reverted my edits tagging this page, so he obviously disagrees with this. Thank you. Logoistic 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I was not canvassing from my alternate account - a NEUTRAL messege was sent to approximately 50 users - approx 50/50 with opposing views - the reason I sent it to them was to raise awareness of the mediation and to get others involved as it seemed that the same 4 editors were the only ones posting on the issue. the is a big idfference between a legit and illegit sockpuppet - you should know as you have now admitted to have over 5 of them. A little balance and perspective please--Vintagekits 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The tags on User:DownDaRoad have also been removed. Logoistic 22:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see this archived AN/I discussion about the puppetmaster tag. The puppetmaster tag is only used on an indef blocked account according to this case. Jefferson Anderson 23:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting case. Would not apply to User:DownDaRoad's page though (if it is confirmed that the tags I placed are correct), just User:Vintagekits' page. Surely these serve as warnings to other users. Of course it "brands" a user - just as warning messages should "brand" them in order to indicate that they have been warned of such things in the past, so should expect harsher action if they do anything else wrong in the future (as they should know better). This SHOULDN'T affect how the user operates, or how other users operate towards them, as editors should comment on content and not on (any perceived) character. Logoistic 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the sockpuppet. As far as I am concerned the sockpuppet was being used abusively outside of the alternate account policy. Whereas someone has to commit very major violations for their primary account to be be blocked indefinitely, it takes only a moderate level of abuse for the same treatment to be delivered to their alternate accounts. The only way I could've possibly let this slide was if the alternate account was clearly marked as such, but since the user has demonstrated his continued intent to deceive by trying to remove the tag, I have effectively removed the account, thus making any issue over the tag irrelevant. I would also encourage my fellow administrators to deal more strictly with alternate account abuse cases in the future, as there is no reason someone who is misusing them should be allowed to have any of them. --Cyde Weys 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but where do we stand on the issue of placing a "sockpuppeteer" tag on User:Vintagekits' page? Logoistic 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anymore; the sock is indefinitely blocked. In my experience it is very unproductive to try to force anything upon a user, whether it be on their userpage or on their talk page. As long as a user is not blocked he has free will to edit his userpages as he sees fit, so long as they are within the guidelines of WP:USER. --Cyde Weys 23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Can I suggest that the guidlines at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry be adjusted, as this seems to oppose this view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Tagging_identified_sock_puppets

"The original or best-known account of a user that operates sock puppets may be tagged with Sockpuppeteer. If the sockpuppeteer has at least one proven sockpuppet, tag the user page with Sockpuppeteerproven instead."

Logoistic 23:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cyde, I would like to protest about blocking of DownDaRoad - from that account a neutral messege to approximately 50 users - approx 50/50 with opposing views. The reason I sent it to them was to raise awareness of the mediation and to get others involved as it seemed that the same 4 editors were the only ones posting on the issue. I sent it from an alternate account because I did not want them be swayed by MY opinion on the issue and wanted them to see it through fresh eyes. As you can see from the messege I sent I did not try to sway or push any POV. I would really like to keep the DownDaRoad account and as you can see I used it in a legitimate manner. Where do I go from here?--Vintagekits 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Where we go from here is basically what you were doing before you made a sock: editing solely with Vintagekits. It's unacceptable to make a sock account to be used in canvassing operations. Why do you think you need multiple accounts? Just edit under your normal account. --Cyde Weys 01:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Cyde Weys, I mean where do I go to get the DownDaRoad account turned back on and my name cleared. I really think that I did use the alternate account in a legitimate manner. Of those the were sent the messege which was in a completely neutral tone and content was sent to equal numbers of those with opposing views and of those that were sent the messege voted both in favour AND against my POV. Again I would state that I sent the messege from another account so that the recipients wouldnt not be swayed by my opinion and see the issue from fresh eyes and bring something new to the debate. Finally, I would really like the DownDaRoad account turned back on so that I can have that account to do my edits on Irish sports and this account for Irish history and politics. Users was allowed keep his sockpuppets and had them deemed legitimate. I would just like to have the same treatment. I have over 2000 edits and have started over 50 pages and do not deserve to be treated like this and would like this black mark against my name removed. Regards--Vintagekits 12:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As have I told you on several occasions now, I had "sockpuppets" because I could not access my old account due to me forgetting the password. I was editing from unregistered IP adresses whilst I sought to get access back. I have now created a new account as a result. This is why my "sockpuppets" (I still don't like using that name for what I was doing - sockpuppet implies I was pretending to be someone else) were legitimate, and I informed users on the mediation page who I was. Yet you continued to put 'suspected sockpuppet' tags on them, despite the fact I made it obvious in the mediation discussion. You, however, do not have such a reason for 'sockpuppets', and I question whether the users you asked were not likely to support your cause. Also, you edited the mediation page as if you were a seperate editor here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage&diff=98472436&oldid=98468028). You also edited other articles relating to your interests, including the Provisional Irish Republican Army here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army) (which Vintagekits also edits), Sinn Fein here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army), and The Troubles in Crossmaglen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Troubles_in_Crossmaglen&action=history). You had no reason not to perform these edits under your Vintagekits account. Logoistic 14:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I accepted that you had those sockpuppets in good faith but only bad faith is assumed on my behalf!??! I did not continue to put sockpuppet tags on your pages - once it was explained and taken off I left it - again acting in good faith. As for the edit - they are hardly cross edits or sockpuppetry to add a wikilink! Finally the single edit to the mediation cabal was a mistake as I explained I didnt realise I was logged in as DownDaRoad - and thankfully I did not give an opinion of anything. It is clear that I was not trying to sway the vote with the messege I left or the editors I sent it to. I just want that cleared up and the account reinstated. I had already put a tag on the DownDaRoad userpage to state it was a legit sock of mine (like Logistic did on his) and I would be happy for that to remain if/when the DownDaRoad user is reinstated--Vintagekits 19:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, both of you guys, enough arguing. It's not accomplishing anything. Vintagekits is limited to one account for now, so stop worrying about it. Can you tell me what exactly this dispute is about? Maybe I can help. But leave the accounts thing in the past. --Cyde Weys 00:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Qwertybambino (talk · contribs) violating WP:NPA and creating multiple articles

Qwertybambino (talk · contribs) is in dispute with me over the creation of All Time NHL Transactions. I marked it for an AfD, and thusly he created another page--NHL transactions, which I marked for speedy. If you take a look at his contribs, you'll see a comment along the lines of HERE IVE DELETED 4 U, U FUKIN LOSER...R U FUKIN HAPPY NOW...WAS MY PAGE BOTHERING U THAT FUCKIN MUCH...FUCK U, U FUCKIN FAG. I gave him a warning about personal attacks, but would someone else like to chime in? Thanks. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24h for personal attacks. Syrthiss 22:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that this is a sock of Querty (talk · contribs) (based on username). There's something really odd going on at the Qwerty page. An admin first deleted the person's user page, then blanked the user page, then protected the user page. [37]. Anyway... Qwertybambino looks like some kind of sock to me. TheQuandry 19:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Love. Angel. Music. Baby.

We've got a serious ongoing vandal issue at this article. I'm concerned since nobody has stepped in and it has been about five days. Velten 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you try warning him and then sending the IP to WP:AIV?--Wizardman 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

IP vandalism. Article has now been semiprotected by User:Bucketsofg. Newyorkbrad 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I semi-d it and Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song), which this IP was also vandalizing. Since the Love… page has been protected and recently unprotected it may be that this semi may need to be recurring. Bucketsofg 01:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User ignoring policy

I hope this is the right place to report this situation. There’s been a dispute between four editors about the redirect of an article which had its contents moved to several other articles – the original article, now empty, had to be preserved for the 2 year old edit history.

• Result of AfD
• Redirection of Wizard (fantasy)
• Redirect discussion continued

One editor (User:Jc37) believed the redirect should go to a “lists” or “disambiguation” page, while the other three thought the article should be redirected to the main name article where the most relevant content was moved to.

In the middle of the dispute, the one editor (User:Jc37) took pre-emptive action to move the old redirect article under dispute to a new article, then created a new article with the old name.

He did this over the objections of one of the disputing editors, (User:Goldfritha) and during a holiday Wikibreak of another disputing editor (me!). This completely contrary to spirit of the AfD findings, the talk page discussion on the redirect, and bypasses the entire dispute resolution process.

The original article was Wizard (fantasy), which was moved to List of wizards in fantasy, which is one of the articles we asked that it not be redirected to! Then he created a brand-new Wizard (fantasy) article with no edit history [38].

I’d like to see User:Jc37 warned, so he doesn’t ignore the dispute resolution process again, and if possible have the changes he made reversed until we all come to a final decision.

Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There are misrepresentations of the truth in this post (which I note you've cross-posted elsewhere). Though in re-reading now, perhaps some are either typos, or an oversight on your part. I'll wait, and give you some time to fix the errors before responding. - jc37 10:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute to me. I can't see anything that needs the attention of people with administrator access. I suggest you follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration. My suggestion is that you take it to RFC if you need a neutral venue, setting up a subpage of the appropriate talk page to summarise either side, and linking to that from RFC. And looking at it, I think you should consider getting a mediator in as well. This looks like a content dispute, and needs to go through the dispute resolution process. It's regrettable that pages aren't where you would like to see them, but I think at this stage it is more beneficial to solve the dispute than deleting pages and moving everything back. I can't see anything which suggests Jc abused his admin tools, as opposed to moving pages which any editor can do, and I think if that's the case this isn't really a matter for the admins. We aren't referees and we don't decide instances where users may or may not have ignored policy. Note that there is a policy, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which allows us to ignore policy, but I'm not sure the problem is best served at this moment by sorting out the finger pointing. I think the best thing to do is work out where you would like to see content placed, and ask people to comment on that and build a consensus on where the content should be. I think mediation should be sought so that everyone feels their voice is heard, and I think after all that you can consider the other issues. But I think the most important issue is the content. It may be that once you get the content issue discussed, it will be easier to discuss and accept other issues. I hope that helps. Steve block Talk 16:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Steve, the one thing I wanted an administrator to do was to reverse the merges and changes performed by jc37. I think this can only be done by an administrator. The other was to have an administrator give an official warning to jc37 so he doesn't ignore the dispute resolution process, which includes the mediation you recommend! Dreadlocke ☥ 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the merges and the like should be undone until a consensus is decided. Think of it as a page protected in the wrong version. It doesn't ultimately matter, what matters more is that the dispute is resolved and then we will know where to move stuff. Admin's don't really do warnings for failing to follow the dispute resolution process, that's a matter for arbitration. I suggest you ask if Jc will accept mediation, and if he is willing, find a mediator. If you can't agree to mediation, then you have to read through dispute resolution and see what the next step is. Steve block Talk 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on: Burlington, Ontario

Note: this was copyied from above. [39]

Check page history and you'll see what I mean. It is pretty obvious that these IPs are from the same person. FellowWikipedian 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, please tell us what you mean. We shouldn't have to perform an investigation to find out what it is that you're referring to. —Psychonaut 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, some guy with the IPs: User:209.250.162.237 User:209.250.163.105, etc is vandalising the article. I am hoping that the Wikipedia admins can help me, if that is possible. FellowWikipedian 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's been going on for a while, I was reverting them back in December. Needs an IP range block. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please block them. Thanks for your input. FellowWikipedian 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, please let me know when you have blocked them. FellowWikipedian 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to do a checkuser. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

YOU ARE NOT HELPING ME!!! I AM NOT AM ADMIN or Bureaucrat ON WIKIPEDIA. THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR HELP ON THIS PAGE, BUT YOU DON'T EVEN CARE. Whatever... FellowWikipedian 22:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Responding in all caps helps nothing. Please remember this is wikipedia, not a live or die situation. Essentially what he told you was to go to checkuser, he can't use the checkuser tool either. In the future, please use WP:AIV for simple vandalism reports, the response there is quick. --Wildnox(talk) 22:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am sorry for typing in all caps but this vandalism was getting out of hand. Next time I will be calm when responding. FellowWikipedian 22:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Also you may want to look at WP:VANDAL, it has some tips and the template messages usually used to warn vandals(much easier than typing a message to a vandal like you did). --Wildnox(talk) 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. P.S. I am an admin on Wikinews. FellowWikipedian 23:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article for now. Hopefully they'll get bored and play elsewhere by the time it's undone. Bucketsofg 22:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks. At least you did something about it. FellowWikipedian 22:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This Website http://rateyourmusic.com/board_message/message_id_is_775121

The above website is clarly taking the mick out of wikipedia for posting Rock Slope, and myself for requesting it be speedy deleted. My userpage has taken a hamering today since the aobve page has been in existance. Could somebody please look into speedying the original page asap, salting the page and protecting my userpage temporarily RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rock Slope has been salted by Aaron Brenneman and your userpage has been semi-protcted by User:J.smith. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoax is not a speedy criterion but *shrug* if I'm wrong and any real source shows up I'll cop the trout whacking. - brenneman 02:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I semi-ed your user page... let me (or some other admin) if the problem comes up again. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick resolution, I can go to bed now - It is must appreciated RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

obscene language

"elastic clause" page has an obscene comment posted at the beginning of the Interpretation section. I can find it in "view source" but when I try to delete it it reappears.

Jennifermckenzie 02:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The same user who added it [40] immediately removed it [41]. We get a lot of edits like this: a newbie testing us out, who immediately removes their damage. It should be all right now. Antandrus (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits by User:Fambo to Jim Abbott

I am writing to report a pair of inappropriate edits by User:Fambo on January 9 on the page of Jim Abbott, a former Major League Baseball pitcher. The changes appear here. I recommend that you review this user's contribution history, and warn him, or temporarily block him. YechielMan 03:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a one time vandalism account, I doubt the user will ever sign in again. --Wildnox(talk) 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Abusive IP Vandal

User User:76.210.181.53 vandalized the Heroes talk page [42], and was reverted. The same vandal returned with a new IP,[43], I reverted and warned him[44]. In this edit he then replied with clear hostility. [45]. I'm requesting an intervention here and a block? ThuranX 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

while I wrote that up, he did this [46] to the policy page. ThuranX 04:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked. Next time post on WP:AIV. —Centrx→talk • 05:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

3 users unjustly blocked by the same admnistrator

Users Nadirali,Szhaider, and Siddiqui have been blocked for a week by admnistrator Ramma's arrow based on false accusations.
Nadirali was accused of making insulting remarks and false accusations,which he requests a chance to disprove.
User Nadirali requests to be unblocked to present evidence to disprove Ramma's arrow's accusations.
User Nadirali,was neither given a chance to request an unblock,nor even reply on his own talkpage.
Nadirali also states that the blocks against Szhaider and Siddiqui are also based on false accusations and requests an unblock to testify against admnistrator Rama's Arrow.
Seriously. Admins abusing their powers are getting annoying. We know Indians on Wikipedia seem to have a real problem with Pakistanis, and since most of you have already proved you are not willing to discuss, why not leave us alone? Unre4LITY 05:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The blocks were in accordance with Checkuser results. See – Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Siddiqui and User talk:Dmcdevit#Siddiqui. Please assume good faith. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You dont understand. This is not the first time, and Pakistani users keep getting the sack for editing when they are correcting articles instead of mindlessly putting down information without sources. I am requesting for these users to be given the chance to explain the situation. This has happened to me before, and I know something is wrong here. Articles have been hijacked by certain members, and editing them, even with sources provided can get you banned.
--Unre4LITY 07:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SOCK? They are blocked for a reason, a reason which is not up for dispute. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rumpelstiltskin223 : Repeated and exuastive Personal Attacks, abuse of system to justify deletions

"Obviously, such concepts are beyond the comprehension of a fanatic with an obsession against India Hindus.It is clear that you are a Hindu hater and bigot and I have nothing more to say to you. Just keep your views in your blog and out of wikipedia. Thaa." [47]

My experience with this user has been generally frustrating. User:Rumpelstiltskin223 has been disruptive in the article 2002 Gujarat violence.

His edits violate WP:NPOV by excluding the notable views of human rights organizations and international publications. The article where conflict began involves the alleged complicity of the then Indian government in a massacre which resulted in the deahts of 2000 people. I made the case that the recollection of information from notable third parties, including newspapers, human rights organizations, and governments, need to be considered with the official statements of the same indian government. Everything I added has been repeatedly deleted in an edit war. Him and those sharing his view have simply dismissed all my sources and suggested sources by deeming their actions as being anti-Hindu (on the talk page, this includes the US State Dept which cancelled an Indian politician's diplomatic and visitors visa due to his involvement in the massacre).

If his edit warring to exclude WP:RS isn't enough, his justifications for his edits and his responses in edit summaries and talk pages have been extremely and repetitively offensive. He has accused me of being "Hinduphobic","racist", "indophobic", he has called me a "bigot", a "fanatic", described me as "ignorant", etc. [48] [49] [50] [51] My comments in regards to the subject matter may seem hostile to one who doesn't consider that the matter in question revolves around an incident where over 2000 people were massacred, several hundred women raped and mutilated, etc. My criticisms on talk pages are limited to the government involved at the time, and the local political figure directly involved in the massacre (the US state dept even banned his visa due to his involvement in human rights violations). There is no justification for the charge of racism or religious hatred whatsoever. I have said nothing that could be twisted to imply a dislike of Indians or Hindus, and for the record I have no feelings against them. I have been hostile in response to these allegations, as anyone would charged with bigotry. In I have not used partisan sources to support up my edits though. Rumplestiltskin has repeatedly deleted content I added that would add the findings of internationally highly regarded (ie Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The Guardian newspaper), which WP:NPOV suggests are essential to give ALL NOTABLE VIEWS voice in the article. His latest violation includes deleting a comment I made on the talk page and adding a warning template to my own talk page alleging 'defamation'. Please do something as I've already lost patience with this person too many times. Note: I have already been threatened by an admin for responding to this character, but no action has been taken in regards to his instigating behavior (ie his REPEATED allegations of anti-India hatred and anti-hindu bigotry) Falcon2020 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: He is now harassing me with warning templates on my talk page, and deleting talk entries from the article in question. Falcon2020 06:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to leave him a warning, however, I see that you have not been very civil yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Above rant is a retaliatory post to him being blocked for abusing wikipedia by filing a false report against me. See the following diffs and a chronology of events:

1. Falcon revert-wars and behaves in an incivil manner on 2002 Gujarat violence
2. Admin warns Falcon2020 for incivility[52]
3. Falcon2020 responds with defiance [53]
4. Admin warns him again [54]
5. Falcon2020 files a false 3RR report [55]
6. I explain that he is gaming the system and lying about copyedits being reverts [56]
7. Admin blocks him for abusing system and doing 3RR himself [57]
8. Falcon2020 commits WP:LIVING violation in 3RR report against living person [58]
9. I warn him [59]
10. He then commits WP:LIVING violation in Talk page [60] where he defames a certain B.Raman, author of this article [61]. As I understand it, WP:LIVING applies to all parts of wikipedia. Please excuse if I am wrong.
11. I formally warn him[62]
12. He makes this post above
13. Makes an incivil remark to my talk page [63].Rumpelstiltskin223 06:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As of now, my report of this users actions so far is complete, signed and dated. Rumpelstiltskin223 06:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I ask that an admin analyze this post of his[64] to see if it, a response to my post [65], violates WP:LIVING against the subject of the discussion. If I have misread the rule, then I apologize ahead of time and will undo my deletion of his post personally. Admins please respond with your assessment in my talk page. If admins agree that I have gone against wikipedia rules or philosophy then I will take warning to heart and apologize. Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 06:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:Vandalism: "Talk page vandalism Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion."

Now see: [66]

Falcon2020 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

He is harassing me on my talk page even NOW. No warning will be sufficient. How can you ask me to be civil when he gets away with anything? Falcon2020 07:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how he is harrassing you NOW. He hasn't made an edit on your page after your report here. Please assume good faith. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

His latest addition of that ugly warning template was at 7:07. I will ask that another admin consider this ANI entry instead of you, I'm having trouble believing you're actually serious. You are ignoring that his deletions of my talk page entries are acts of VANDALISM as defined in WP:VANDALISM. His record suggests his only desire here is to be disruptive. Falcon2020 07:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In my view WP:LIVING precedes over all other rules in this case. Again, if I am mistaken then admin with more knowledge may contact me and I will re-insert the statements that I removed. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

BLP issues are dealt here – Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 07:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not even reading- there is no PERSON involved in my edit. Falcon2020 07:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RPSS has provided the diffs. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding his most recent allegation. I do not think he is allowed to remove warnings unless an admin decides otherwise. As of this moment I have not been contacted by admins regarding this particular matter. Therefore, I will assume that my warnings are legitimate and take steps to make certain he does not illegally remove them. If an admin disagrees with my position then please contact me in my talk page and I will follow instructions. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While both of you have been rather harsh to eachother, I must say that after reading the talk pages and the article's disscussion, it appears that Rumpelstiltskin223 is removing acceptable content based on his own opinions, and then attacking Falcon for putting up the other side. This is obviously a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. I may be wrong, but whether I am or not comes down to one question, does Wikipedia consider the HRW to be a reliable source. "Plus, HRW is not neutral or reputable. See Criticism of Human Rights Watch.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)". Can you really use a criticism page to determine a group uncredible. The New York Times has one too, but Wikipedia allows that doesn't it?--Danielfolsom 07:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for such a discussion. Please look at Talk:2002 Gujarat violence for my responses. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I request again that another admin address this issue anew, User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington is listed as an "Indian Wikipedian", as the article in question revolves around the Indian Govt's association in a massacre, and Rumplestiltskin's charge against me all along has been "Indophobia", his curiously partisan approach to this entire issue is suspect. He is instead giving the person causing all the disruption here advice on how to combat me User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-PorpingtonFalcon2020 07:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note, this user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of banned user BhaiSaab on confirmation by checkuser Dmcdevit, on his talk page and due to similarity in editing. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've username blocked WikiWarrior1

• WikiWarrior1 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This user had e-mailed me asking for some help regarding their username block, but I'm about to go offline. I've probably compounded the sting of having his first edit reverted as "retarded nonsense" so if someone can please hold this person's hand a little bit, and feel free to slap me around if I've handled it poorly. - brenneman 06:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems to know the reason for his block and will hopefully re-register. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the username? Warrior is hardly that bad; it's not like it says WikiJihad or WikiKillPeople. No worse than User:Opiner. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a borderline case. It was probably just intended as "I'm a tough guy" but it sounds a bit like "I engage in edit wars". —Dgies^t c 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rich Wannen

I just blanked this user page, and indefinitely blocked the account. As background, I had some experience with this user before I was an admin. As a newbie, he attempted some very radical changes without understanding some basic things about how Wikipedia works, and then left the project. I've archived some of this at User talk:SamuelWantman/Rich Wannen. He was not blocked in the past. One of the big ironies of his experience here was that some of the things he wanted to happen, did actually happen after he left (like renaming all the "cinema" categories to "film"). His most recent post a short while ago, contains a legal threat, so I blanked the page, and blocked the account. Not sure what else I could do in the circumstances, and if it was appropriate to leave the page as he wrote it. I figured it could always be restored after discussion, which is what I'm asking for now. -- Samuel Wantman 07:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

An added irony, the legal threat was made by an anon. The anon is upset because the user page accused him of being a sockpuppet using IPs that are very close to the IP of the anon. It is probably a dynamic IP. -- Samuel Wantman 09:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has an opinion? -- Samuel Wantman 21:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Threat by Herostratus

In response to the lame edit war on WP:PI (see above), Herostratus (talk · contribs) is now threatening with a "war" [67]. I'm not sure why he gets so worked up about this, but I find this comment wildly inappropriate. >Radiant< 09:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Judging by another comment of his at the bottom of the page I would say he is NOT threatening war, but commenting on the current situation as a war. Viridae^Talk 09:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And that comment is possibly even more inappropriate, in that he accuses those people who disagree with him of "sterile, useless, energy-wasting, ... childish contention, ... find[ing] edit wars and wheel wars exciting or amusing ... gaming the rules ... [and] childish small-mindedness". Almost makes me wish WP:PAIN was still around. >Radiant< 09:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What is really inappropriate here is you reverting to your favored version five times in a row with no argument but blithe assertions that "we" have decided that this is the way it should be. That you made yet another revert and then came whining about your own edit war on ANI while misrepresenting everyone else's positions is absurd enough, but congratulations you succeeded in getting the page protected on your version. You can stop now - there's obviously no threat on Herostratus' behalf as Viridae points out. Haukur 15:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that both you and Heros immediately resort to ad hominems indicates that you really don't have a good argument. As I recall, I asked you on the talk page what the deal was, and you said it was a dislike for {{essay}} ([68]). Since nobody agreed with you that that was a good reason, and Jeff agreed with me, there was no consensus for your removal of the tag that had been in place since October 6th. Heros came in afterwards talking about "the reason this has no essay tag" when in fact the tag was there for several months. >Radiant< 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hate to sound patronising, but guys, dispute resolution is that-a-way.--Doc^g 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This is not a subject for ANI and I won't make any further reply here. Haukur 22:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

There are a number of "high-risk templates" in here with requests to change them, with at least one (Template talk:Cite encyclopedia) several days old. May I ask that someone either take care of these or unprotect the templates? Thank you. --NE2 09:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So I'm not the only person who complains about CAT:PER backlogs? I just added {{adminbacklog}} to it when it reached 10 entries. --ais523 12:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:NEMT

NEMT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user, while being a productive editor most of the time, is given to occasional bouts of deliberate and pre-meditated vandalism. There are many examples of this if one cares to trawl through the contribution history (here's the most recent one, which occurred today). The user's talk archive and block log show the extent of the problem. I'm not sure what the next step would be. Judging by the talk archive, the user does not seem to care about his actions as he feels that his productive edits should "allow" him a bit of mischief now and then, and reasonable requests to stop receive combative responses and, it seems, are ignored. Zunaid©® 10:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've noticed this as well. RfC is probably the next step. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The user's combative response and wiki-lawyering when asked politely to behave leads me to believe RfC won't work. Read the type of responses he gives on his talk page. This person obviously disrespects the rules and loves taking the mickey out of anyone who engages him, playing with semantics and such-like. To go to the effort of Arbitration may be more trouble than it's worth as he will very likely repeat the pattern of non-response and obfuscation. The most frustrating thing is that he is a constructive editor most of the time, just given to a childish streak. I say slap him on the wrists with a 31 hour block, and increase it every time he repeats his dubious behaviour. It is clear-cut premeditated and deliberate vandalism. Zunaid©® 15:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless, RfC is probably the next step. You can't go to ArbCom without evidence of having tried to resolve the dispute, and RfC is a standard part of that. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• RFC strikes me as a waste of time. I don't think we need one to establish that vandalism is against policy and is frowned upon by the community. Nor do I see that the ArbCom is needed, this is a problem that can be resolved with the stadard response (i.e. blocking). Christopher Parham (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• I agree and am ready to just block him at the next instance of vandalism or of silly incivilities, such as this from his user page. Sandstein 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Sanghak

Sanghak has already received three blocks for uploading images without any source information [69] [70] [71]. As you can see from his talk page, he has been asked many times to study Wikipedia's policies and clean up his act. His most recent block ended today. Since then he has uploaded one of his images that was previously deleted due to a lack of source information. This time he has provided a source URL (the correct URL is actually http://roonba.50webs.com/nonfifa.htm), but is still claiming to be the creator of this image when obviously he isn't (the site at roonba.50webs.com appears to be operated by someone called Mark Cruickshank). He also removed the no_source template and OrphanBot messages from another of his images [72] and reinserted it into at least one document [73]. I've spent a lot of time trying to get this user to mend his ways, but he hasn't responded once. My patience is pretty much exhausted now. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 10:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

URGENT - Half-Life 2 (featured article on the main page) is NOT PROTECTED and should be.

The article Half-Life 2, which is the featured article on the main page but is not protected has had 180 edits in the past nine hours. See here (most of them are vandalism) for the 180-edit diff, the history, and my watchlist for the compacted list of editors (most are IP and new made-for-vandalism accounts). I reccomend an immediate full protection, changing to semi-protection after a cleanup, and a massive block party, IPs and users alike. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fabulous attitude you have there. (rolleyes) Generally, the FA is never protected unless really necessary. Nothing major, every FA gets it share of vandalism. I'm against protection, 180 edits in 9 hours seems perfectly okay for TFA, we've been hit worse before. – Chacor 15:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't protect the main page FA, see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Kusma (討論) 15:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was about to direct the requestor to PPOL, when I checked it to find that in this edit, made without discussion that I could see, the important note about high profile articles was removed. What? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My bad. -- Steel 15:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Wait, no. I removed it because it was more relevant to semi-protection, and is mentioned on that policy's page. -- Steel 15:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I misreading consensus that the FA of the day should rarely, if ever, be fully protected? I don't see this mentioned anywhere. I note an ongoing debate about semi-protection, but we're all in agreement about full, right? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well at least sprotect the damn thing: of 180 edits, at least 2/3 are vandalism, and the rest are mostly reverts fixing it. Nothing constructive. Not to mention that sprotect would exclude the IP and very new users, who are doing the vandalism... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the load it's putting on the servers, and how it's filling them up: IP replaces page with 'PEEEEENIS LOL!!11', user reverts, IP blanks page, user reverts - that's already two new copies of the article saved, and a big article too. This diff is just from while we've been talking. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Server load and disk space are not problems. Kusma (討論) 15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Three edits a minute is nothing for the servers. Any bot will do twice that, and we've got probably a hundred of them roaming around Wikipedia. --Carnildo 19:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not protect or sprotect the featured article for any length of time other than to clean up vandalism. Period. That is the consensus, that's always been the consensus. Featured articles attract a lot of vandals and testers, for obvious reasons. It is also the first article that people new to Wikipedia go to. So if they've read all about how Wikipedia works, how you can edit it, then they go to find where to edit and find out they're not allowed, then they get a wrong first impression. In addition, a lot of featured articles come out improved after being featured on the main page, and a lot of that is from anonymous editors. They're not all vandals; hell, some of them are just testing! So we watch the page more closely, warn and block obvious vandals, greet and inform testers (don't bite), and we keep it as clean as we can. —bbatsell ¿? 15:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should not be protecting the today's featured article, except in the event that a serious, non-vandalistic edit war breaks out among established users. Which, really, would be grounds for the article being de-featured (they're supposed to be stable), and I can't actually imagine it happening, all of a sudden, on the day the FA reaches the main page. Mangojuice^talk 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To give some idea of such improvements on recent featured articles: The Adventures of Tintin (261 edits[74]), Operation Auca (120 edits[75], vandalism in last one corrected in next edit), Invasion (203 edits[76]), and Fauna of Puerto Rico (187 edits[77]). This shows that most changes are cosmetical (wikilinks, some spelling) but overall an improvement to the article. This also shows that general and/or popular themes get more edits than more specialized ones. Fram 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

NB for newcomers: This is only "consensus" in the odd, if well-established, Wikipedia sense of the word (which you'll encounter in AfDs and the like). A possibly small percentage of editors who've been here for some time, such as myself, think that not sprotecting featured articles is a damn silly idea and a massive waste of time; and that the kind of would-be editor ***ERIC IS A FAG*** who will give up and go away if he doesn't get instant satisfaction the very first time is an editor that WP can very well do without. The changes to the Tintin article could have come later, been suggested on its talk page, etc. But hey, this desperate openness to people with limited attention-spans is a matter of faith in WP; who am I to argue? -- Hoary 16:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Pilotguy - open proxy

Could please tell someone this admin the difference between open proxies and IPs his tool does not know? Several of his blocks are against regularly registrated IPs [78]. Thanks --ST ○ 17:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (deAdmin)

WP:AIV backlogged...

...and I have to leave now. Please check the 14 open requests. Thank you. Kusma (討論) 17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Vinaixa67 blocked

I have blocked Vinaixa67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for continuously posting information without sources. The user doesn't speak English so communication has been difficult (many, many thanks to Patstuart who helped in some of the communication voids!!. Basically the user adds information about upcoming albums for musicians or rankings on singles charts for songs without providing sources. The most recent one is this. I post this here for review. I'm not quite sure if 24 hours is too little or what. The user has 3 previous blocks for uploading copyright images time and time again. Metros232 17:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I did specifically warn him several times about posting unsourced information, and said he would be blocked. He claims that he gets his information from television and a locked site on the internet, and has been a bit unresponsive (e.g., saying "don't worry about it", but continuing to do so). I'm not quite sure how to handle this any further. -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Though, upon closer inspection, this specific addition doesn't look as bad as the others. Patstuart^talk|edits 21:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Gnetwerker

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Gnetwerker indef block. Anyone with experience of Gnetwerker should probably add their $0.02. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing, 3RR, vandalism, wheel warring at Vladimir Lenin

On January 8, the IP address 204.102.211.115 (talk · contribs) was blocked for disruptive editing at Vladimir Lenin. Edit summaries and edits themselves are exactly in keeping with those of banned user Jacob Peters (talk · contribs). Today, Hu!tz!l0p0chtl! (talk · contribs) made an edit to the same article that is very much like those of JP [79], removing the sprotect template in the process. I strongly suspect Hu!tz!l0p0chtl! (talk · contribs) is another JP sock. You can clearly see his history of contentious editing at Soviet-related articles. [80] TheQuandry 17:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems fairly obvious to me, especially given sock history (though I'll admit I didn't look too closely). Is this a case for WP:RFCU? Patstuart^talk|edits 21:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks from User:TrentJones

TrentJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has left several personal attacks at my talk page, even after a final warning. Request block. John Reaves 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but I have to say that some of your replies to him were a bit of gasoline on the fire and may have exacerbated the situation. When confronted by someone who is obviously trolling you it is better to stay WP:COOL instead of feeding the WP:TROLL. The account you pointed out below User:JJohnReaves should be indef blocked as an attack account and if you feel this may be User:TrentJones I suggest you submit a Checkuser on the account. socking to attack is a big no-no.--Isotope23 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. John Reaves 19:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Imposter/Sockpuppet vandalizing

JJohnReaves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing my talk page. User is most definitely a sockpuppet of User:TrentJones. John Reaves 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Has been blocked indef. Arjun 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dark Matter

Hello

The first line of the Dark Matter article appears to have been subject to racist vandalism, and a dubious link installed.

I hope this has been posted to the right place, but the instructions on reporting such matters did not make a blind bit of sense, and the article itself didn't seem to have any way of informing the original authers.

Many Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.152.154.6 (talk • contribs)

Balbers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) already fixed the vandalism.--Isotope23 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think blocked sockpuppeteer User:BryanFromPalatine is at it again

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BryanFromPalatine (4th) --BenBurch 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

He continues to use this sock puppet to evade his two week block. Can we please get his block timer reset to two weeks and the sock and IP address blocked? Thanks! --BenBurch 19:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE - This is the same IP address which was the subject of a positive checkuser finding. --BenBurch 23:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Death threat

Here. Same user also vandalized the AFD discussion, but that kind of pales by comparison. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I blocked the user indefinitely. Johntex\^talk 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I am being accused as a sockpuppeteer and Bowsy is being accused as my sockpuppet. Llama man and Metros232 aren't using reliable evidence. They are accusing us because we have similar beliefs, userboxes and share a computer. This is not very good evidence. By accusing us for having similar beliefs and intrests, they may as well say it is illegal for any two humans to have similar beliefs and intrests. He is trying to use the edit war as an excuse, but Bowsy only contributed once and then tried to resolve it in a civilised manner. I however, continued to edit and was uncivil while doing so. Llama man has also rejected Bowsy's defence saying they are lies when he has no proof. We live in the same household so we share a computer. This is also why Bowsy created his account shortly after mine and why we edit in regular intervals. Please can you resolve this false accusation before we are unfairly blocked as the sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer we aren't. Henchman 2000 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin, just to make that clear. Anyway, I thought I'd make a comment here since I'm mentioned in this comment. I now believe you, for the most part, that you are not sockpuppets. As for a reply to your comments: You had virtually the same layout to your userpage. This is quite unlikely unless a Wikipedian asks another user on their talk page if they may use the same layout, or the users share computers. Metros and I didn't know that you and Bowsy are, or claim to be, sharing a computer, as you didn't mention it before the sockpuppet case. I accused you of being sockpuppets because you had similar layout to your userpages and were strongly opposed to WP:CRUFT (which isn't really much in itself, but the fact that Bowsy !voted four minutes after your nom, and it is highly rare for that to happen, it was likely you were the same person), and I had no knowledge that you shared a computer. This does not mean that I might as well have said that it is illegal for two people to have similar interests; rather, because so many things were similar about you and Bowsy, that it seemed you were sockpuppets. –Llama man^{sign here} 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

legal threats

Anyone who's not keeping an eye on the Derek Smart arbcom case, I'd like an uninvolved administrator to take a look at the personal attacks and especially the legal threats by User:Supreme Cmdr on that case. I understand there is an arbitration currently pending, but that does NOT allow them to be able to make personal attacks and threats against other users. Only a handful of diffs needed, the rest are perfectly clear from a browse down the Workshop page: Note: h e's been blocked EIGHT TIMES for (i believe 41 days) personal attacks....legal threat, legal threat, insinuates another editor is stalking and is committing crimes, personal attack "Liar",incivility, incivility, personal attacks, libel claims, incivility, incivility, disingenuous editing while claiming "weazel words" and "pov pushing" to protect his own POV, incivility, refusal to assume good faith amongst ALL other editors on wikipedia, more personal attacks and incivility against another person this time, uncivil edit summary usage etc....and even trolling for help on other user's talk with incivility such as "consensus by dolts" in effort to "game" the arbcom ruling.

This is sickening, and it's frustrating, and as I've mentioned before, it's stressing me to the point that I'm seriously considering leaving the project because absolutely nothing has been done about this.

He's been blocked EIGHT FREAKING TIMES, community banned from the article, which was never enforced other than a single block, and he's STILL around causing trouble. Why is this being allowed to continue, seriously? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, useful link: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Derek_Smart/Proposed_decision#Supreme_Cmdr. In my understanding, the situation is currently being discussed by ArbCom and they should hopefully reach a decision shortly. Addhoc 20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned the pending case above, but a pending Arbcom case does not excuse an editor from following the most basic policies of wikipedia, such as WP:NLT and WP:NPA, both blockable offenses, and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF as well. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

When a user like this is clearly out to disrupt, it become a huge time sink for people who volunteer to keep this encyclopedia running. For that reason alone he should be blocked. We cannot afford to lose good users by assuming good faith to malcontents. David D. (Talk) 20:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this case certainly has been a time sink, however as this shows there is currently a discussion within ArbCom about whether he should be blocked for 2 weeks or a year. Addhoc 20:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• In my view, he should be blocked until the arbitration committee makes finalizes its decision. Bucketsofg 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I added another remedy at the workshop, regarding this little outburst of harassment and legal threats. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated Daniel.Bryant, Addhoc, and Bucketsofg, and David D. Thanks for the eyes. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

External links from User Vwollan‎ & unregistered user(s) on Atmel AVR, AVR Butterfly & unregistered user

There is a persistent problem with the Articles Atmel AVR and AVR Butterfly. A number of external links keep being added which violate WP:EL. The full list of links and reasons are discussed on the Talk:Atmel_AVR page. On the talk pages I was accused of being a Big Jerk and a Little-Hitler'.

As the edits were originally being done by an unregesited user I requested and was granted semi-protection for the articles. I did this in the hope that it would cause the offender to register and prompt a civil discussion. This stopped the annymous editing and the User_Talk:Vwollan to surafce and perform the same edits. However civilised discussion remained impossible. The User:Vwollan had already recived a 1 week ban for adding excessive links.

The article AVR Butterfly went to mediation over the same matter in September 06 (Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-10_AVR_Butterfly). An unregistered user has recently modified the archive of the mediation.

As attempts at civilised discussion have lead nowhere (and both parties (myself included)are getting close to the thre-revert-rule) I am unsure what to do next. I don't really want to request full protection, and I fear another mediation case would lead nowhere. I would like to bring this to the attention of an Admin/Sysop as attempts at resolvoinng the matter appear to have failed. -- User_Talk:Rehnn83 --Rehnn83 20:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Urging POV pushing

Is it legitimate for User:PBurns3711 to write things such as [81]? Or is this abusive of Wikipedia? 82.28.43.244 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It neither here nor there. What's important is if the article is neutral and with reliable references. Thanks/wangi 23:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No one likes a tattletale. Blogspot.com is not part of Wikipedia. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a pretty blatant case of soliciting outside supporters for collective revert-warring (he isn't asking them to contribute constructively, but to help him re-insert exactly his version of a single article), and as such potentially highly disruptive and a breach of WP:SOCK#Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. A stern warning would be in order, and if the article should indeed get swamped by single-purpose meatpuppet accounts, there should be swift administrative action. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Asterion^talk 00:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You may well get more helpful replies than the above if you were to alert the Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights to be on the lookout for meatpuppetry at that article. Jkelly 00:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also warned User:GWP, who seems to be the primary reverter of PBurns' edits, not to engage in personal attacks. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series incidents

A user and his respective sock puppets, Butterrum in particular, have been making edits that are disproven, due to discussions in the talk page and its archives, but said user and his sock puppeteer continue to post the erroneous edits. I would very much appreciate an administrator to look into this issue, even if I will be reprimanded, to any degree, in the process; I merely wish the issue to be resolved. BishopTutu 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the serious issue here is not the content dispute, but rather the possible sockpuppetry. --Wildnox(talk) 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at AfD

It appears to me that there is significant sockpuppetry occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Donnelly (author). The author of the article isn't too happy that his article is up for deletion, and at the time of this writing 6 SPA's have been created to vote "keep" on the article. Several of these accounts have edited comments by other accounts, and one of the latest one has added a "keep" comment and signed it as the original article author Celtic 0106. Could use some help with this... thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• One of the SPAs has a really interesting edit. JuJube 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - if that's not proof of sockpuppetry, I don't know what is. Dan, in the future, just tag single-purpose accounts as such with {{spa}}, then if the article isn't deleted and you believe the socks are the reason, file a checkuser request. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing the tagging, but it's getting a bit annoying. Isn't this blockable? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)