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

More H.E. socks to block

H.E. is disrupting Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/His_excellency with Hisexcellencyreturns (talk · contribs), after CheckUser confirmed that Ibn Shah (talk · contribs) was identical to MomoShomo (talk · contribs). (MomoShomo was not IP-identical to prior socks, but was blocked by admin Tom Harrison as a sock based on behavior, for which the evidence is very strong). Both accounts should be blocked, and if admins could put that page on their watchlist for more disruption I'd appreciate it. - Merzbow 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Hisexcellencyreturns (talk · contribs) should be blocked; his comments on the CU page moved to his talk page; and a link to the page before his writtings were moved to be provided on the CU page for further decisions. --Aminz 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser proves that I am not His Excellency. Please stop bothering me about it. Ibn Shah 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser does not prove anything, it just gives clues. Neil ╦ 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

He is now disrupting ANI with his comments, and continues to disrupt RFCU. If H.E. wants to comment he can do so on his talk page, as Aminz says. (BTW it's funny how all of these accounts that are supposedly not H.E. socks are born as adults, with the ability to find their way to ANI, RFCU, and 3RR at will, with nary a newbie edit between them. Also funny how his self-admitted socks seem to find the time to check these places multiple times a day for mentions of him, odd for a banned user who isn't supposed to be here.) - Merzbow 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a naive comment. I may be new but do you think I'm not going to look over the contributions of people who are petitioning to get me banned with every other edit? Yes, I will, to defend myself. Ibn Shah 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny how you never saw the need to contest MomoShomo (talk · contribs)'s indef then. MomoShomo was obviously the sock of some previous experienced user. The easiest way for you to clear your name is to indicate who that user is. (But the answer, of course, is H.E.) - Merzbow 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't desperate to contest it because I already had this account among other reasons that I listed on the checkuser. Of course the only evidence you have now is circumstantial, so I'm sure you'll try to find every excuse you can to get me blocked. Ibn Shah 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

MomoShomo is banned, are you are confirmed to be identical. Unless some other admin wants to overturn Tom Harrison's block of MomoShomo, you are confirmed to be evading a siteban, and should be blocked forthwith under policy. That's all. - Merzbow 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you always go around endorsing incorrect sitebans or do you really have something against Muslims as His Excellency was alleging in his edit summaries? If Tom Harrison was so confident in his previous block then he would have blocked me himself when he was on Wikipedia a few hours ago. This is getting quite annoying. That's all. Ibn Shah 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"HisExcellencyReturns" and I were editing almost concurrently recently if you look through our contributions. That further proves that I am not him. Ibn Shah 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom just went on wikibreak, so your joy is premature. I formally request that an admin either block Ibn Shah as a sock of banned user MomoShomo, or overturn MomoShomo's block. The status quo as it is cannot stand under policy, with an RFCU-confirmed sock of a banned user walking around editing. That is the last I'm going to say here unless asked a question by an admin. - Merzbow 00:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Shah and MomoShomo have been confirmed as H.E. socks now and blocked. - Merzbow 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The administrative response to this thread was unimpressive.

This is as clear a warning against overreliance on checkuser results as one could hope for.Proabivouac 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If Dmcdevit had not come through with extra-effort checkuser results, we'd still be dealing with Ibn Shah and also Xiao_t (talk · contribs), both H.E. socks and both heavily editing articles together. More admins should become familiar with his editing style and be willing to follow-up on these reports; he is quickly becoming a sockmaster as corrosive as Hkelkar.- Merzbow 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No HE is even worse than hkelkar. Since he lives less than 5 miles from BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) it appears obvious that both are probably colluding in an attempt to undermine wikipedia. The information given to me by Hkelkar before his block (regarding BhaiSaab) makes string of puppetry from NYU/NYC (residence of these two users) entirely plausible.Bakaman 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Per the community ban discussion a couple months ago, it doesn't appear as if BhaiSaab has socked for a while; he appears willing to wait out his block now. Do you have evidence he is socking again, and/or colluding with H.E.? - Merzbow 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Physical threats between students

Resolved

I have just blocked Silver Fang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for extreme physical threats at User talk:Jwarrior343 and User talk:Waveisback77788 (see this diff and this diff). Usually I'd revert, block, and move along. But because it appears these are threats against fellow classmates, I felt I should bring it here to be looked at further. What should/could be done about this? Metros 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Threats of buttkicking presumably happen all the time in junior high schools across the world. I don't see any reason to do anything more than what you've already done. Friday (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Threats of buttkicking are just fine, as we then get to buttkick the one who threatens! As was done here. Moreschi ^Talk 20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but shouldn't I at least contact the Internet police? Metros 20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

...another reason I shouldn't wiki at work: random bursts of laughter is suspicious. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Whew, that picture is funny... but back to business, see this. Apparently it's just a bunch of school kids pwning each other. I gave them their wish and blocked all the accounts that were not already blocked. That should take care of that.--Isotope23 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You did all that you're responsible for. Good job!!! We need to keep that kind of crap out of Wikipedia!!! This is not a freaking chat room! Redsox04 19:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sadkid2010 is a sockpuppet of User:Funnykid2010

My evidence is as follows:

• Similair Name
• On page of Sadkid2010, it says "HalfShadow, why are you posting stuff about vandalism on my page for my other account when I did NOTHING????" proving they have another account, and HalfShadow warned it
• User Funnykid2010 commented unsigned on halfshadow's page
• HalfShadow has warned Funnykid in the past
• On talk page of FisherQueen, they signed a message as follows: "-Funnykid2010, pretty soon Sadkid2010."

This is my first time reporting a sockputppet, so if I stuffed something up, I apologise. Thanks! Matt - TheFearow 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Added more evidence. Matt - TheFearow 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You would probably get a better/faster resolution of this at WP:RFCU or WP:SUSPSOCK. Feel free to ask me questions if you need help posting your case. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User Lft6771 repeatedly pushing his original research

He rejects all mass media as "corporate media", "They are all wrong", and "misinformation" and refuses to cite any sources. I repeatedly told him and asked (and even offered him to reach a consensus, which he simply ignored): [1][2]

Instead, he simply reverts to his version (repeatedly), which is not only originally researched but also full of (dozens) "citation needed" marks:[3] Yes, he ignored my warnings too.

Thanks for taking care.--HanzoHattori 08:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Seek dispute resolution. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have time for any of this. As for now, I guess any moderator telling him along the lines of "original research is bad, m'kay" (and that he needs to provide RELIABLE sources for everything) would do. I don't REALLY seek him to be banned (after all, what problem is to get an anouther account and go back with a real vendetta). So, thanks in advance again. --HanzoHattori 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • We are not moderators. We are administrators, ordinary editors entrusted with access to certain tools. If you want the support of other editors in telling this person about original research, then use dispute resolution, including Requests For Comment and Third Opinion, as you have been told to do. Uncle G 09:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I took the time to read up on your dispute (unfortunately, administrators often don't have that time, especially for long protracted disputes as this). I would suggest filing at WP:RFC, and also, I would suggest being more precise. It's my experience that as who ramble on and can't precisely state the nature of the problem are often not paid attention to. The Evil Spartan 16:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • • Nah, I'll decline. I hate all this beurocracy. (Btw, he reverted your revert too.) --HanzoHattori 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan (Iran)

I would like to draw community’s attention to the situation with Azerbaijan (Iran) article. This article has been a source of dispute for quite some time, and has been protected a number of times too. Right now the dispute is about over whether it is ok to add info of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reports. Some users delete this verifiable info from the article under the pretext that “Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox”, however I don’t see how adding verifiable info from a third party source is soapboxing. I know that this may not be the most appropriate place to raise this issue, but I would like to ask experienced and impartial editors become involved with this article to help resolve the disputes, and also ask the admins to keep it on their watch lists. Thanks. Grandmaster 10:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are organizations with their own political agendas. To the best of my understanding, information must come from reliable sites, and those sites aren't. Od Mishehu 10:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that they have any agenda other than protection of human rights, plus what's wrong with reporting the opinions? Grandmaster 10:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The same information on human rights of Azeris in Iran is already available on Azerbaijani people, Iranian Azeris and Human rights in Iran. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, you can not spam Wikipedia articles with the same information on four different articles. The article Azerbaijan (Iran) is a geographical article, not an ethnic one. AlexanderPar 10:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not about human rights per se. It is about recent history. I made edit on page Iranian Azerbaijan based on multiple sources [4]. user:Pejman47 2 times blindly reverted it without reasonable explanation. First time he left short comment on talkpage and after that I reintrouduced my edit with new sources as he requested reliable sources. Second time he just reverted without comments on talkpage. He did it after I urged him to explain his behaviour. It is interesting that user:Pejman47 arrived at this page to revert me after user:Alborz Fallah who, an hour earlier, reverted me on another page Iran-Azerbaijan relations. And user:AlexanderPar also delete multiple sourced information. I opened RfC case for that but abovementioned editors instead of deliberations keep removing historical information--Dacy69 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything has a place and a purpose. WikiNews is for current events, and Iranian Azeris, or Human rights in Iran are the appropriate articles for ethnic issues and human rights reports, not geography articles like Azerbaijan (Iran). You, however, have been inserting the same poorly-sourced information on multiple pages from "Foreign relation of" articles - to geography articles, this is blatant soapboxing. AlexanderPar 13:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69 is attempting to spam the same information on several articles. The issue they want to insert into Iranian Azerbaijan is already included in two or three articles.Hajji Piruz 14:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, WP:AN/I is not for the content disputes. You already have an RfC open on the article. Unless you want from us swift administrative actions (like block somebody) please argue on the RfC page. Alex Bakharev 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I reported not about content but about behavior of editors. Thanks.--Dacy69 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see a problem with User:Hajji Piruz's usage of word "spam" left and right against editors. The comment above is just one example. Is there a warning or some form of reminder that can be issued to the user about it? Thanks. Atabek 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

now I see that that stuff handpicked by you from sources like isn.ethz.ch/ and amnesty international, "the most unbiased information source of the world") has been copy-pasted in the 4th article [5], I understand that some users have called that edits "spam", and you have not yet explained your misguiding "edit summery" in [6]--Pejman47 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I urge admin to interfere with blatant vadnalism of User:Hajji Piruz and others orchestrated by him. without discussion they redirected page which was suggested by third party during RfC [7]--Dacy69 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what vandalism did I commit? LOL, what did I do? Dacy69, the only one not discussing anything is you.Hajji Piruz 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz meatpuppets Pejman47 and Alexanderpar again reverting [8] - now what it is suggested by third party mediator during RfC--Dacy69 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Undelete - compromised admin account

Please undelete Category:Candidates for speedy deletion 650l2520 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been restored by another admin, but what the heck was that deletion about? WP:POINT?--Isotope23 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the deleting admin Vancouverguy (talk · contribs) might bear some watching. Account has been inactive since October 2005 and suddenly shows up to make a WP:POINT deletion of the CSD category today.--Isotope23 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he's trying to tell us that he was really fast at deleting images, and we have silly backlogs. At least that's my AGF version. Keeping an eye on him is a good idea, though. Kusma (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouverguy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been desysopped and blocked indefinitely. I blocked him after he was desysopped by User:Bastique, after I reported this account as likely to be compromised. After he played silly buggers with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - stupid move - there wasn't much doubt IMO. Moreschi ^Talk 15:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call.--Isotope23 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No more AGF after he continued trolling using admin tools. Pretty fast response time, little damage. Good work. Kusma (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainlly looks like it was got at - good call. --Fredrick day 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a footnote, 87.175.68.193 (talk · contribs) and 194.54.189.173 (talk · contribs) made a few similar edits immediately after. :-( --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How would the account have been compromised? I thought the weak passwords were changed? Carcharoth 16:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

His associated e-mail could have been compromised?--209.115.153.68 16:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I have an idea. Email accounts are hacked easily, and all a vandal needs to do to get hold of an admin account. Is get the email account, then click the button sayijng "Email new password." emailing the password to the email account, allowing the vandal to log in... Francisco Tevez 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromised or not compromised, doesn't massively matter. If not compromised, then admin actions like that are just vandalism with admin tools. Not clever. If the account was not, in fact, compromised, he'd better have a bloody good excuse. Moreschi ^Talk 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser needed? Francisco Tevez 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that the two IP's we've associated with the hacking come from Germany and Poland respectively, and VancouverGuy is from, um, Vancouver, I doubt it was really him. The Evil Spartan 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouverguy's authentic contribs are too old for checkuser. Thatcher131 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides which, the IPs he used were, unsurprisingly, Tor. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What's really confusing is this: if someone has gone to the trouble of hacking this, why waste it with two silly, high profile, but not very disruptive,pieces of vandalism - think of what he really could have done?--Doc^g 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who ever said vandals are smart? Seriously... those who have been around here long enough to be creative are few and far between.--Isotope23 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Best de-adminship spree yet. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the account was not compromised, an admin from 2005 might find the Brave New Wikipedia of 2007 quite a weird place. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

With that in mind, is there any reason why an account that was dormant for a year and a half was still an admin? That strikes me as a bit of a security hole. Resolute 19:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We've been over that before, I can't find the link, though.. there are both pros and cons for doing it. Neil ╦ 19:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And his action of deleting C:CSD was especially annoying today of all days - I've been working like a mofo on keeping it clear. Neil ╦ 19:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD has been more manageable during the past couple of weeks due to the efforts of a handful of vigilant admins. I am amazed at the amount of work you guys have done. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:PEREN, why we don't desysop inactive admin accounts is there. Moreschi ^Talk 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• However, the assumption that inactive accounts are less likely to get hacked than active ones is questionable in light of the last couple of months... Georgewilliamherbert 20:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (tell me where to propose) - I propose that admin accounts inactive (no edits) for 3 months are put on suspension - admin bit is flipped off, but will be restored 24 hrs after resumption of normal editing and upon filing a request on WP:RFA. Request does not need RFA approval, just create a new section there for handling it, so the bureacrats don't have to watch other pages. Admin will remain "an admin" during the suspension, just with the bit flipped temporarily. Georgewilliamherbert 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Three months might be too short a time period, but the Wikipedia:Inactive administrators proposal, which was on the page that Moreschi linked seems ideal to me. This very case would suggest its usefulness, and there is also the general security issue. Working tech support, I wouldn't ever think of leaving someone with admin privledges active should they leave the company. It is just begging for trouble down the line if that person returns with a different attitude towards the company. As Wikipedia grows and becomes a bigger and bigger target, it needs to minimize risk where it can. This may be a proposal that could benifit from a second look. Resolute 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Wildscreen and www.arkive.org

Could I get a couple of additional admins to look at this. Either I overreacted, or we have a serious long term spam-link situation here. The mentioned user was adding links to the same site to many articles. A regular sign of spamming. I reverted the links and gave the user a warning. A search of the link shows the site is linked to already on a *lot* of pages. Some by this user a while back, misc others by other users. A look at the page shows a conservation site. Not a for-profit organization, but they do have prominent Donate Now type links around their page. I'm not a spam expert, and this is not quite the obvious case it appeared to be at first glance. Or maybe it is such a case, and all the links need to be removed. Anyway, I was hoping a couple of others could take a look at the situation and give their $0.02. - TexasAndroid 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a clear case of WP:COI and attempting to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, but the pages aren't the most objectionable spam I've seen (the donate links are tiny and not the main focus of the pages by any means). We run into the same problems with people going around mass adding NNDB and various wikis and so forth... The sites have some info, but don't seem to have any reason to be as linked as they end up getting linked, and fail WP:EL on the "sites that don't have as much info as the existing Wikipedia article or what the article should have if it were improved" criteria, on top of the self-promotion problems. As a general concept I remove all these when I run across them, but each has pretty dedicated people pushing them back in later. All of these seem to be a calculated attempt to exploit Wikipedia for their own purposes, probably out of good faith (thinking the info is good, etc.), but still. DreamGuy 17:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(and is it just me, or does the part about the "nofollow" tag in the standard warning about linkfarming strike anyone else as pretty naive and/or deceptive... I don't know if it's from Wikipedia mirrors not using nofollow tags or just Google loving Wikipedia in general, but any link added to Wikipedia can expect a substantial jump in Google ranking and hits. It's just a fact, and that's why we need to patrol these things. DreamGuy 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's linked from 580 articles - now they might be in good faith and they might add something to the articles - who wants to take a look at each of them :-) --Fredrick day 17:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I have gleamed from some of the articles that have the site as a reference, it doesn't seem like a problem. Being a part of WP:CVU and regular member of the WP:SPAM mIRC chat room, I have a basic check list I use when investigating spam. I check if the link is a reference or merely an external link. Then, I look for in-your-face advertising on said link. In this case, all I can see is a small donate link. Next, I look at their “about us” page, to see if they are for-profit. This page states “ARKive is a not-for-profit initiative of Wildscreen (www.wildscreen.org.uk), a UK-based charity, whose mission is ‘to promote the conservation of nature and public appreciation of biodiversity, through the power of wildlife imagery’.” If there is something about this I am missing, please let me know. Otherwise, I don’t see the site as a problem here. Perhaps to some users and IPs that insert these links, they see these as the best available references. I do the same thing with All Music Guide and Allaboutjazz.com for my various WP:ALBUM and musical artist pages. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary of opinions then. The site itself is not bad, and no real need for wholesale removal. When inserted on a one by one basis, the link is likely fine. But the mass insertion by User:Wildscreen was inappropriate, and at a minimum an attempt to promote arkive.com using WP, and so I was correct in reverting/warning this user. Does that sound about right? - TexasAndroid 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I now see your problem. As you describe it, whenever such an incident occurs when I am watching recent changes or the mIRC spam channel, I flash revert and warn the user that adding so many links at one time is unwise and shows an agenda. Also, on a personal side note, adding links to pages that are solely pictures and/or movies is a no-no, since those pieces of media may be subject to copyrighting, even if not uploaded to Wikipedia. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This external link was added previously to other articles and then discussed on the talk of WP:TOL and accepted as valid. I am restoring the links. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I've utilized the link on a few articles to improve the articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you were not an established user, I would be giving you a spam warning right now, Uther. Reverting all those spam links is rewarding the spammer. The spammer was placing the links in to promote the site. If it is added one by one into articles, it is not a problem. If it is added in mass to multiple articles at a time, it is WP:SPAM. WP:SPAM specifically prohibits the mass adding of links as was done. By mass revererting to reinsert the link, you are yourself now the spammer. - TexasAndroid 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To expand a little, how the heck are we supposed to tell Wildscreen that what he did was spam and improper, while at the same time Uther gets to revert all the spam links right back in, and that's supposed to be acceptable? The mass adding of the links is improper, and is spamming, no matter who does it. It's worse for Wildscreen, because of WP:COI issues on top of the spamming, but what Uther has done is still spamming the project. - TexasAndroid 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TexasA here; these links shouldn't be added back in. I accept ARKive.org as a valid reference but the manner in which these particular ones were added in bulk and the nature of the link (possible copyrighted images and videos), and these links placed above all other links on said pages shows me these shouldn't be in the external links section. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And where was that discussion at WP:TOL Uther? I couldn't find it. Also, I have just noticed that Wildscreen is the "UK-based charity" that ARKive.org is based on (I know, I mentioned it above but didn't put two and two together until now), so this is a huge WP:COI. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The www.arkive.org discussion is on Archive 17 of the WP:TOL talk. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So what now? The spam links are currently still in the articles, as I did not want to get into a back and forth revert war over this, but I still feel strongly that the spammer has been rewarded for their actions by allowing their links to remain. This whole thing is a little grey. I *think* I would be justified by WP:SPAM to continue reverting Uther, removing the spam links again, but is this whole thing worth edit warring over? Sigh. I just don't know. - TexasAndroid 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I will support you to revert. The archived discussion at WP:TOL deals only with links that are directly beneficil to an article. Wildscreen's WP:COI edits are adding links to images and videos, which are most likely copyrighted. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits and Uncivil Comments

Recently, changes to the United States were made, including the dropping of a citation for basic info on the country (How many states, year founded, etc.) 1. However, Corticopia, objected to this, and re-added the citation; 2, 3, 4. 5, but then removed the warning on his talk page 6. He also wrote this message on the US talk page 7.

Since another user had already started a thread on him at the 3RR noticeboard 8, I added diffs from the United States issue (mentioned above). Corticopia objected to this, 9. An admin ruled that the violations were stale, but warned Corticopia to be civil 10. Corticopia then replied with this 11.

I also asked the user who reported him originally about writing him up at WP:ANI 12, and Corticopia responded with this threat 13.

It should also be noted that Corticopia has been blocked 5 times for violating 3RR. He was last blocked on May 20, 2007 for a period of one week. A sixth block was rescinded after an admin ruled he hadn't technically broken the rule.

Thanks ---BH (T|C) 18:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in my experience Corticopia has been remarkably intransigent and uncivil. Moreover, he seems to want to "game" the 3RR system: he'll revert three times and then promise to return the following day to revert again. He's not interested, it seems, in establishing consensus through discussion. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. In the span of only three days, Corticopa reverted United States three times in succession on three separate occasions--the first time over a period of 13 hours; the second time in a span of 23 minutes; the third time in a span of 53 minutes. Here are the three separate warnings I left on his Talk page: [9]; [10]; [11]--note that you must scroll to the end of the diff to read the new, third warning (Corticopia had deleted the earlier warnings in the interim). I also note, though Corticopia issues plaints about "personal attacks" directed against him, it was he who first made the vigorous but healthy debate over the style and structure of the United States lede personal and uncivil in the following comment on the article's Talk page, in which he charges those opposed to his argument with "sophistry": [12].—DCGeist 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is probably a minor thing, but it's frustratingly difficult to understand what on earth he's trying to say half the time. I was reminded of this by this edit, which is frankly unintelligible (huh? what comma splice?), let along this one (which is a pig's ear even after eight separate edits). And it was in similar circumstances that he and I started butting heads, when he insisted that I was using "unencyclopedic syntax" but without explaining what that might mean. But once he's taken a position, he's almost invariably unwilling to back down, preferring to revert to incivility (and that's putting it mildly). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia does not follow the rules. S/he is a an editor who does not wish to follow the WP:NPOV policy. I have showed him/her that a POV that differs from his/hers meets the requirements of a "majority" POV according to WP:WEIGHT, but s/he has continued not following the policy by not allowing the POV in the article. S/he continued to revert the article under question to the version that did not display a neutral POV. Her adamant refusal to concede that her edits are against Wikipedia Policy is flusterating. In some of my dealing with him/her, her/his accusatory remarks were completely uncalled for. When I initially started arguing with him/her, s/he accused me of sock puppetry, since anonymous IP editors took similar views in the talk page. This was against WP:FAITH. Corticopia continually disregards Wikipedia policies when s/he forms her arguments for article content. Whereas my arguments with Corticopia rest on Wikipedia Policies which I regularly call by name, Corticopia does not base arguments about article content on policy. Her arguments are based on incivil tactics. In multiple occasions s/he has argued with editors and has ended up disingenuously calling a them a troll, accusing them of "sophistry" and threatening to call down the administrators on them. These clutch arguments are put forth regardless of the situation, because they are merely empty threats Corticopia uses to scare away other editors. I have brought up this issue in a discussion with Corticopia but s/he erased my comment in [this edit] against WP:TALK. The worst argumentive strategy Corticopia uses is refusing to discuss the article's contents with other editors when they try to discuss changes in the talk page. How can article improvement proceed if Corticopia refuses to discuss the modifications with other editors and simply reverts the article to her version? Corticopia has followed up exhaustive arguments with indeterminant phrases such as "acknowledged". Corticopia claims that when she says "acknowledged" it neither means she agrees or disagrees with the other editor. She has tried to use this tactic as a means to end all rational discussions, so she can have free reign to revert the article. Corticopia has not, in my mind, genuinely tried to base the reasons for her/his edits on Wikipedia Policy in discussions and refuses to work in accord to policy with regards to her article reversions.----^DarkTea 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh-Oh! It looks like that irregardless of the comments by me and three colleagues, not one admin is even looking into the matter. The user in question is an edit warrer who has been blocked 5 times for actions, but yet he's still allowed to continue his disruptive and uncivil ways here at Wikipedia. It just makes me sick. BH (T|C) 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some admins have lives outside of Wikipedia. Did you take it to WP:3RR, where it states, "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." You may have luck with that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it got taken to WP:3RR, where it was likewise allowed to grow "stale" by admins. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there over 1200 admins. Plus other sections seem to attract more interest. I wouldn't complain, however I don't want this go "stale" without action being taken. BH (T|C) 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK; this is really long, so let me ask, in a nutshell: is there anything here that is blockable and not already stale? Some have suggested Corticopia is gaming 3RR; could you provide some diffs to show this? Just diffs with no long paragraphs about it, please, a little explanation if necessary. Or, if the incivility is current, show me a few diffs for this? Maybe you've already listed some of this; if so, well, the remarks above are pretty long and it's hard to figure out what's up. If there's nothing blockable here, there's nothing for admins to do, and you should consider dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Potentially Uncivil: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I'd relist the 3RR stuff, but that might be harder to do without making it too long. BH (T|C) 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly current, but it's enough that we should probably keep an eye on him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for Corticopia refusing to discuss article content any further:Corticopia does not refute my arguments but calls me a troll and refuses further discussion, Corticopia's threats and refusal to discuss changes, and Corticopia calls User:Meowy a troll and refuses discussion with her----^DarkTea 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And the diffs for the revert thing are:1, 2, 3. And here the user threatened to keep reverting the next day 4. BH (T|C) 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia was recently blocked for a week by myself and does not seem to have taken the hint. It is time for a longer block if it continues. Dmcdevit·t 00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You, Dmcdevit. My contention this whole time has been that Corticopia has yet to learn his lesson and a much longer (if not an indefinite) block is needed to stop his behavior. BH (T|C) 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to know why incivility alone isn't reason enough for a block. WP:BLOCK mentions incivility as a reason, and also mentions that the users prior blocks can be used to impose a stiffer penalty. BH (T|C) 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, oh well. I was recently directed here by another editor -- busy bees we are. While I am tempted to address and respond to the charges of each encyclopedisteditor, which are replete with a sort of confirmation bias I can only describe as laughable, I really have better things to do. And that will be the extent of my involvement in this farce. Corticopia 02:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Farce? This is no farce. It is a serious discussion about the way you contribute here at Wikipedia. You have been blocked not once, not twice, but five times. This thread is to determine whether or not you've learned your lesson. And given these diffs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, say6), I'd say you haven't. And it is within my rights to ask other users who have dealt with you in the past to comment here. Perhaps if you hadn't had so many run-ins with editors who have had to deal with your disruptive behavior and uncivil comments, they would be harder to find. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a farce: given your abortive move of America and concomitant chiding there, I am unconvinced that your spearheading of this is an overreaction and/or retaliatory attempt on your part. I will not address other comments made above -- not because I cannot but because I have neither the inclination nor the time to indulge in your witch-hunt and in the confirmation bias of like-minded editors, not to mention the circular argumentation such an exercise would result in. Your invitations to other editors to seek my blocking are more a reflection of your sensitivities and intent than of my ... editing idiosyncrasies. Despite accusations from you et al, for example, I have received kudos from others for said efforts at encyclopedism, which remains problematic amidst the often challenged editing and one-sided commentary from commenting/solicited editors above. Wikipedia is not your mother: if you or others cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And beyond this I will not comment further. Ta. Corticopia 05:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, that debate had 8 people opposed to me. So explain what I've done to witch-hunt out the others. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 05:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I myself have had problems with getting an admin to act upon another problematic user, so I can't really advise you on another place to go for help. It doesn't hurt to try, though. Following WP:DISRUPT, try going to WP:CN. If you are up to it, try seeking an admin and contact them through their personal talk page, referring to this ANI. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its very important to remember WP:IGNORE, User Corticopia edits have only served to make this a far more valuable resource of information. Many articles here have been hijacked by a gangs of users with absurd POVs and are able to force "consensus" through their mafia style tactics. I strongly urge you to research the factual merit of Corticopia's edits rather than enforcing "rules" for their own sake. Wikipedia can bring out cult-like behavior in some people that get obsessed with the rules over the content. Please remember this is an encyclopedia first and a fascist society of rules and their enforcers second --Caligvla 08:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Corticopia's been editing constructively for a fair bit, but it's not an excuse for doing it recklessly. Reckless editing is detrimental to community, and without that there's no encyclopedia. One doesn't have priority over the other, they go together. This is the subject of this discussion. It doesn't matter if one thinks the other side is biased, because they're probably thinking the same on you. This way of thinking leads to conflict. Assume good faith, and assume the assumption of good faith. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that reckless is a fair assessment of Corticopia. He's passionate, and let's himself get egged on, but that's not a terrible quality, just a bad one. He gets busted for 3RR because he worries about making a good encyclopaedia, not following the rules. It's not perfect, but not terrible. That he escalates problems with disruptive editors, rather than diffuses them is not so great. But since he isn't the one being disruptive in the first place, no "further" action needs to be taken against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)

What about his incivility? Corticopia loves to use the sh*t in his comments, and refers to those with differing opinions as "Sophists". See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. And WilyD, perhaps your too new of an admin to know policy, but incivility is blockable as it is considered disruptive and harmful. And he's the learned the 3RR rule because he now knows to revert three times in a half-hour, then come back the next day and keep it up. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect America without consensus and despite lengthy discussion and prior attempts, then launch an abortive move at America and -- in the middle of that -- launch a contested straw poll on the same page; when that fails, insinuate the same viewpoint into the DAB. I can also expand on, for instance, DarkTea's persistent attempts to significantly skewreframe Asia with a narrow view despite near unanimity against such editing (see that talk page), and you tell me who is being disruptive? I can go on, but won't -- suffice to say that sophistry and perhaps incompetence are abound. If you prefer uncensored comments or synonyms, I can oblige, but editors can either ignore all rules or just ignore -- I make no apologies, and again Wikipedia is not your mother. And when junta-like editors push their viewpoints, misrepresent or act without consensus, add text with poor or unreferenced syntax, here above all, or just remove long-standing citations with little reason from articles which remain far from featured status (perhaps far off because of such removals in part), said corrections are not being disruptive but merely represent encyclopedic zealousness. That's it for now. Corticopia 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Corticopia guess what? This isn't a fuckin' debate about me. Its a debate about you. If you really feel what I have done is wrong, start a thread on me. Nobody will even consider what I've done to be wrong. My failed attempt to have America redirect to the United States? That's disruptive? No it isn't. It was an attempt to reach consensus, and you know what it failed. And I put the United States on top of the DAB page, because, in that "abortive" attempt as you describe, everyone seemed to agree that United States is what America commonly refers to. So stop shitting on those who you don't like (aka those who disagree with your agenda) and start helping to improve this encyclopedia. And by the way, my use profanity is allowed per WilyD. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is disruptive, arguably ... and it seems the end result has yielded an outcome which has yet to agree with yours. Anyhow, stop sh*tting on yourself: no one is a paragon of 'wikivirtue' and this is not a venue for the timid. I have no problem with others who 'disagree with [my] agenda', but your attitude and expressed intent to block are precisely and partially why this whole thread is farcical. Apropos, I will refrain from commenting here and withdraw from these proceedings, which is sometimes necessary when things run as amok as this fruitless exercise. Corticopia 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking in English is usually encouraged here, speaking with metaphors like you do is the mark of a sophist. And you have also not yet mastered the art writing comments in one try, the fact that you have to edit your comments several times before you feel satisfied is extremely annoying BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

When last I checked, metaphors are part of the English language. Anyhow, your other comments and level of annoyance regarding this or that (single tear?) are of no concern and proof-positive of my prior comments. I shall waste no more time on this. Corticopia 16:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

These "examples" are pretty lame, to be honest. There's nothing wrong with saying "shit" - in fact, that I've used "fuck" as part of my edit summaries on a few occasions was discussed at my RfA and no one thought much about it. "Fuck you" is inappropriate, "Ah, shit - I've fucked up the table format" is not. As for the rest of it --- you generally aren't given admin tools unless you already understand policy. Refering to the arguments of other editors as "sophistry" is not the greatest way to deal with other editors, though sometimes POV-warriors need to be called out on what they're doing. Gaming the 3RR rule is bad - but Corticopia's already been subjected to escalating blocks for it - he'll figure it out or he won't. But there's nothing else to see here - certainly I've not seen any incivility that's cause enough for a block. WilyD 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia is clearly trying to dodge the subject by talking about other's rule breaking. This thread is not about whatever article or subject you're working on. Frankly, I don't care about that. No one here should be concerned about that. What we're talking about is how you're handling the subject. You might say Ignore all rules, but I think you should look at what that means. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Fayden

I have today received two personal attacks via email from the blocked user User:Fayden asking why I blocked his account and then going on to say rather nasty things and make threats about me. I had never heard of Fayden until he emailed, and certainly had nothing to do with his blocking. I'm avoiding replying to him as it will give him my email address. According to others, I'm not the only one receiving these, and he's repeatedly requesting unblocking claiming to have done no wrong, and seemingly has no interest in reading Wikipedia policy. I posted this at WP:VPM, and was directed here. Cheers, Stannered 18:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A diff: [13] Stannered 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've re-blocked him with the brand-new email blocking feature enabled, as he seems to be misusing that privilege. That should dry up the stream of emails, at least. MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Stannered 18:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Where can we learn more about the brand-new email-blocking feature? Newyorkbrad 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same...I see the option has appeared on Special:Blockip. - auburnpilot talk 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell he would be emailing anyone other than me is downright baffling (though I did get an email from him)... I love the new feature, though. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK, under "Setting block options", for a brief explanation of the email blocking option. This is the first time I've used it, but it just felt right, somehow. MastCell ^Talk 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this user faked an email pretending to be from an innocent third party entirely unrelated to the block to unblock-en-l. As such, I have also placed a block on the IP address. I suspect that google search results for Iced Entertainment Media Inc. are going to start including the links to the Wikipedia pages showing this Fayden person's bad behaviour. Well, he brought it on himself. --Yamla 03:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jackofalltradesmasterofnone is a sockpuppet of User:Quentin X

As explained on the userpage of User:Jackofalltradesmasterofnone. Dalejenkins 20:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I my opinion, this seems fine on the surface. The Jackofalltradesmasterofnone (talk · contribs) states that he can not log onto his account, Quentin X (talk · contribs), at work, so has created this account (which works). I would probably do the same thing. The user does not hide the fact and this complies with WP:SOCK. However, if there questionable edits or the users are not actually the same user, then there could be an issue. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it does explain that. Is there a specific problem? Sock guidelines do allow the use of multiple accounts for benevolent purposes, and the explanation seems reasonable. They're not editing at the same time or anything, and the sock's talk page redirects to the main account. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote fraud by banned user

12345ak (talk · contribs) was indefinetely banned in April by Moondyne for abusive sockpuppetry.[14] In a previous blocking of one of his sockpuppets, 131.111.8.104 (talk · contribs), Avraham cited this edit by 12345ak as one of the reasons for the block, proving that 131.111.8.104 - registered to the University of Cambridge[15] - was one of the sockpuppets used by 12345ak.

In May a new user account was created, 12345ka (talk · contribs) (note "ka" not "ak"), which voted keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism in Sri Lanka (Second nomination) as his first edit[16]. Out of the 5 IPs which voted to keep the article, 2 are confirmed to be IPs of the University of Cambridge, 131.111.235.31 (talk · contribs)[17] and 131.111.8.104 (talk · contribs) (the confirmed puppet account of 12345ak) [18]. That would almost certainly mean 12345ak / 12345ka was engaged in vote fraud on the AFD.

I didn't think a checkuser request would be required in this instance given the proof, so could an admin please block user:12345ka as a sockpuppet of a banned user, and are there any other ways to prevent further vote fraud at AFDs by the same user using various IPs? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Obvious sock. Sasquatch t|c 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Momusufan reverting all my edits as vandalism

Resolved

 – for the time being.--Chaser - T 22:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Momusufan (talk · contribs) is going aroudn and reverting all of my edits as vandalism, which they are not. Can someone please review? Thanks. --130.15.219.160 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, your edits do not look like vandalism at all. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a content dispute of sorts. Am trying to sort out on Momusfan's talk page and will find a source for the population of the town.--Chaser - T 21:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check requested for a range block

Can another admin sanity check a range block I just did for a half-hour. It's the last thing in my block log. The IPs were vandalizing Wal-Mart, User:DerHexer, and Home Depot, and possibly other pages.--Chaser - T 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Expired by now.--Chaser - T 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review: Soccermeko (talk · contribs) trying to OWN their talk page

See User talk:Soccermeko. They have posted "rules" forbidding the posting of messages to the page. They have reported 2 users to an admin. Also threatened to have User:Moondyne blocked. I've blocked for 36 hours as they had a previous block for harassment and incivility. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I usually say to grant people leeway to do lots of things on their own talk page, but you can't just forbid contact and expect it to be enforced. Fully agree with the block. -Amarkov moo! 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, hopefully a quick jab with the "get a clue" stick should solve the problem. --Fredrick day 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Forbidding people from posting on your talk page is only an invitation for people to do so. —Kurykh 23:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

yes and it's disruptive to boot - the use of the usertalk page is an accepted part of the communication and "glue" that hold wikipedia together. You don't get to opt out of communication from fellow editors (within reason).--Fredrick day 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also agree that posting such rules is inappropriate. The rules are no longer there; for those who want to see it, here's an old version. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Evaded block

User:Wikimegamaster was blocked on the 10th June for canvassing and trolling. He circumvented the block to leave a message on my talk page on the 11th [19] the nature of the message was an apology for behaviour and a promise not to do anything else while blocked. I'm listing it here as it is a block evasion but what do people think about following up on it? Given the conciliatory comments and no other obvious edits being made while blocked should any further action be taken? Mallanox 00:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This does not constitute circumventing a block. People that are blocked can still use talk pages, circumventing a block means editing with an IP or a sockpuppet. DarthGriz98 01:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was under the impression that while blocked users could only use their own talk page to request unblock. Mallanox 01:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistent copyvio uploader still active depite warnings/previous blocks

MaindrianPace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still uploading copyvio images despite numerous warning and several previous blocks for the same repeated offences. Prior to last block the suggestion was an indefinite block. But the next offence only resulted in a 5 week block. NOTE this user is also editing unlogged as IP 66.97.112.223 (talk · contribs) as can be seen in this IP's edit history. Suggest a long vacation for both. 156.34.228.140 01:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

First, this IP user helps a lot on the project, so I trust their judgment. Looking at MaindrianPace (talk · contribs) contributions, there are concerns that this user is not getting what we are asking for through policy. The talk page alone is damning. The user has been blocked five times with four of them being directly related to images. If others agree, I think it may be a good idea to take this to WP:CN. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandal currently on another spree

67.49.181.250 has been vandalizing many articles in the last few days. I notice he has had several warnings before on his talk page but they have not deterred him, and his account is being used solely for vandalizing articles and his vandalism spree doesn't appear to be slowing down. Masaruemoto 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Lewisskinner

This user is doing super-speedy reversions, apparently either using a bot or tabbed editing, but whatever he's doing, he's obviously not paying attention to what he's doing, because in many of the cases where he's editing, he's reverting good edits back to vandalism. Corvus cornix 02:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please block him until he responds to the problem? Corvus cornix 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I just spot-checked the last 10 of those he did; they were all either clear vandalism he fixed (8), or seemed to very likely be (2). I don't know if this is manual or automated, but unless you can provide us with good reason to think he's got an automated or semi-automated bot in use, it appears to be good if rapid vandal fighting.

I'm not ruling out that he may have made some mistakes; if so, please call out the specific edits he did which are goofs, preferably to him on his talk page (your note there was too vague). If he keeps making a significant number of mistakes or won't respond to them there, bring it back up here. Georgewilliamherbert 02:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see with his reverts, most of them are removing vandalism, but a few seem to be trigger happy. The controversial ones have been reverted back to their original ones. This doesn't warrant a block; it would be punitive in such a case. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 02:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

His proportion of "goofs" is ten times what anyone actually reading the revisions he's reverting could ever be believe to make, and he's been evasive and nonresponsive when asked to explain. I've blocked him until he gives us a darn good explanation. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See the edit history of Galeries de Hull, where he reverted my speedy delete tag back to an empty article. See his reversion of Donation. See his reversion of Tilt up. See his reversion of Gamma ray burst. Corvus cornix 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See, here's why linking to specific diffs in the initial report is so important. If the first 10 things that an uninvolved admin looks at aren't the problem, then you didn't give us enough info to begin with... Thanks for elaborating now, though. It does clarify the situation. Odd. Georgewilliamherbert 02:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked him to give him a second chance. I hope he learned the importance of double checking what he does. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Womcat: A User:Komodo lover sockpuppet

ResolvedAkhilleus blocked the account indefinitely. Pants^(T) 03:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Womcat coincidentally edited some of the same page that User:Black Rhino Ranger edited, including Impossible Creatures and Animal Face-Off. The user even restored a comment made by Blue Rhino Ranger. Pants^(T) 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Komodo lover. Pants^(T) 03:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

misuse of admin tools by Irishguy

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
Irishguy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Irishguy and Tecmo have gotten into it in the past:

They got into a disagreement on the Kevin Youkilis article, where Tecmo a 3RR block (partially related). Tecmo reverted him at 12:17 with an edit summary that said "see talk page". Irishguy didn't wait for Tecmo's comment at the talk page and at 12:20 commented on Tecmo's talk page to let him know there was no comment on the talk page and then reverted him at 12:21. Tecmo's talk page comment clocks in at 12:23, he blanked his talk page at 12:24: "how many idiots are there in one day". Irishguy thinks this is another example of Tecmo's bad behavior:

"Actually, you didn't bother to comment on my talk page until after you had blanked your talk page twice and called me an idiot. Yes, that is ignoring comments."

Except you can see by going to Tecmo's contribution page quite easily, that he reverted and his next contribution was to the talk page. Maybe he had to go to the bathroom, maybe the doorbell rang.

AGF and what actually happened didn't seem to matter. But it should when we're dealing with new editors who could be sockpuppets or who could just be new editors.

Irishguy filed a Suspected sock puppet report. Given that he filed the report and his past with Tecmo, he shouldn't have been the one to declare that the evidence he found was "obvious" and block them both within a day of opening the report.

His solid evidence was that Tecmo warned El Redactor about a conversation on his talk page about El redactor. Tecmo warned El Redactor and no El redactor (cap difference) and El redactor found the conversation anyway.

In actuality, El redactor found his talk page and commented on the Shoeless Joe Jackson section, and then the "El redactor" section. Maybe he got there because Irishguy commented on the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page (he'd edited the talk and article pages minutes earlier). Maybe he got there because he looked at Baseball Bugs contributions (his last two edit summaries said "baseball bugs is following me").

WP:AGF and WP:BITE and policy and procedure have been ignored, and people have forgotten that their own arrogance aside, we don't know whether El redactor is or is not Tecmo. If he's Tecmo--a sockpuppet was blocked quickly. But if he isn't, then look what's been done to a new editor. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:07, June 13 2007 (UTC)

At the very least this bears looking into. If the sockcheck was not complete, then it was premature for Irishguy to block. Irishguy does appear to be 'involved', which would seem to suggest that Irishguy should have deferred to an uninvolved editor to do the blocking. I agree that the socks issue looks suspicious, and AGF says it is not a sock until proven to be one. Lsi john 12:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl has "gotten into it" with many editors, from the beginning. He has been blocked several times recently for 3RR violations, by other admins. El redactor's behavior fits several points of classic sockpuppet behavior, and his connection to Tecmobowl has been demonstrated. Baseball Bugs 17:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The first edit yesterday from El redactor was to the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page and somehow he already knew about me and my edit history in removing that link from articles. Please tell me how he knew to look exactly 100 edits deep into my contribution history to find evidence that I removed those links from other articles. Additionally, the only two days that editor has edited are when Tecmobowl is under a block. That's one hell of a coincidence. Why are his first edits to add Tecmobowl's spam link back? As a side note, what exactly is your connection with Tecmobowl seeing as you keep running all over Wikipedia to defened him? IrishGuy ^talk 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Miss M's relationship is with Tecmo, but this is one of a recent series of pages on which she has sought to defend him, while posing as uninvolved and unbiased herself, and often while ignoring other's comments pointing out his questionable actions. A brief search will yield the examples to which I refer.

Tecmo has been ignoring Wiki policies with a recidivist obsessive and non-apologetic air, claiming that the directive to be Bold allows him to do so. He within a 3-day period this month was blocked 3 times by admins for 3RR violations, and has generally refused to adhere to consensus or reason. For a number of editors, including me, his activities have proven to be a significant distraction from positive contributions to Wiki. Admittedly, it is difficult to follow his admonitions from admins (and others) as he blanks his talk pages, and asks people not to discuss their problems with his behavior on his talk page. But a review of the following [20] will give some of the flavor of what I am referring to:

• (cur) (last) 21:56, June 12, 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) (3,745 bytes) (Decline unblock, continued ranting)
• (cur) (last) 19:26, June 12, 2007 Kurykh (Talk | contribs) (1,762 bytes) (decline unblock)
• (cur) (last) 22:56, June 10, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (7 bytes) (get some sense and stop instigating things - your are the poorest admin i have ever come across - don't worry, I'll address your sockpuppetry bs soon enough.)
• (cur) (last) 20:40, June 10, 2007 Heimstern (Talk | contribs) (1,033 bytes) (You have been blocked)
• (cur) (last) 15:26, June 10, 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) (1,362 bytes) (warning)
• (cur) (last) 15:24, June 10, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (847 bytes) (→Stop - how many idiots are there in one day?)
• (cur) (last) 15:20, June 10, 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) (1,278 bytes) (warning)
• (cur) (last) 14:05, June 10, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) (1,539 bytes) (→Dispute - Add reply.)
• (cur) (last) 13:35, June 10, 2007 TigerShark (Talk | contribs) (468 bytes) (Dispute)
• (cur) (last) 13:17, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (261 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Kevin Youkilis)
• (cur) (last) 13:14, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (259 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Hideki Matsui)
• (cur) (last) 13:05, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (362 bytes) (User Warning -- Delete -- 4im)
• (cur) (last) 12:49, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (360 bytes) (User Warning Level 4 re continued deletions of baseball urls)
• (cur) (last) 12:39, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (1,303 bytes) (→Fangraph deletion - User Warning; Deletion; Level 3)
• (cur) (last) 11:41, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (23,228 bytes) (→Blocked)
• (cur) (last) 01:41, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) (22,931 bytes) (→Blocked - reply)
• (cur) (last) 00:49, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) (22,711 bytes) (→Blocked - block eextended)
• (cur) (last) 00:47, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) m (22,537 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey - block notice)
• (cur) (last) 00:45, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,971 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
• (cur) (last) 00:45, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,971 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
• (cur) (last) 00:43, June 7, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (21,016 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey - removed a personal attack)
• (cur) (last) 00:39, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,829 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
• (cur) (last) 00:31, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,512 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Al Rosen)
• (cur) (last) 10:03, June 6, 2007 Alansohn (Talk | contribs) (21,016 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Al Rosen)
• (cur) (last) 23:13, June 5, 2007 Alansohn (Talk | contribs) (25,791 bytes) (re persistent ignorance of consensus)
• (cur) (last) 14:48, June 1, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (21,923 bytes) (→Your removal of urls with unique information/edit warring - Why do you assert that your talk page is not an acceptable place to discuss this matter?)
• (cur) (last) 09:01, May 29, 2007 Baseball Bugs (Talk | contribs) (9,536 bytes) (I have asked an admin...)
• (cur) (last) 20:58, October 28, 2006 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) (banned)
• (cur) (last) 11:13, October 24, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) m (→Vandalism warning DO NOT DELETE!)
• (cur) (last) 11:11, October 24, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) (Vandalism warning DO NOT DELETE!)
• (cur) (last) 04:38, October 21, 2006 TV Newser (Talk | contribs) (reverted vandalism - User:Tecmobowl keeps blanking page to hide various warnings.)
• (cur) (last) 12:55, October 19, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) (Warning)
• (cur) (last) 06:09, September 29, 2006 MER-C (Talk | contribs) m (JS: Reverted edits by Tecmobowl to last version by TV Newser)
• (cur) (last) 06:08, September 29, 2006 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (LEAVE ME A LONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the hell do you keep messing with me for)
• (cur) (last) 06:07, September 29, 2006 TV Newser (Talk | contribs) (rvv - I see you are trying to hide all the vandalism warnings.)
• (cur) (last) 20:18, September 11, 2006 Splash (Talk | contribs) (Baseball: warning)
• (cur) (last) 18:19, September 10, 2006 TBTA (Talk | contribs) (Vandalism warning)

Finally, as to Miss M's suggestion that he could just be a new editor, I note that he wrote to Amin Nishkid: "I am well aware of the full consequence of my actions and my behavior....//Tecmobowl 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[21]

--Epeefleche 20:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What? You mean this diff? That's a comment written by Tecmo (El redactor had no edits on the 10th) in regards to BLANKING HIS TALK PAGE. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:32, June 13 2007 (UTC)

I mean that as one example of his comments to the effect that he understands the consequences and his behavior. This relates to your suggestion that he may just be a new editor.

He has also made statements with regard to his view of what the directive to be bold means, along the lines of "... people want to discuss my behavior. Unfortunately, I am a person who will continue to be BOLD in my edits. I am sorry that seems to be a point of contention, but seeing as it's point number 5 on wiki's five pillars, it is going to be difficult to convince me otherwise." Note the absence of agreement to follow consensus, and the focus on others having to convince him in order for him to stop deleting urls.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Irishguy--he only had to look at the article history page, as he probably would have done when making a REVERT! You also commented on the article talk page. But please stop arguing the sockpuppet case here. My only point was that the sockpuppet case should actually happen--you can't be lawyer, judge and jury for El redactor. This isn't where to file or comment on a sock pupper case--it's ANI--those comments belond there.
• Epeefleche--my "relationship" to Tecmo is very simple. I came to Wikiproject based asking for help finding sources for alumni. You can see a section where I asked (for the second time) above the Tecmo disaster. As such, WikipProject Baseball was on my watchlist. When that section got posted, I started getting a lot from them--more than usual (it started to look like ANI), so after a day or two I looked to see what was going on. And was subsequently confused and horrified as you can see by my first comment there that a fairly simply content issue had turned into flame throwing. Btw, I asked about the block not because I wanted him unblocked or I was requesting but because I was confused. I'd been watching the page at the time, didn't see evidence of edit warring and was generally interested in why the decision was made.

Do I always agree with Tecmo? No. Not by a long shot. But there's a reason I finally came here the other day, and I reason I posted here about this. I don't know much about Tecmo's past behavior, but whatever it is that is going on, he and the situation is being handled so badly, that generally whoever is dealing with him behaves worse than he does, or at least incites a situation. If everything that Tecmo was doing was so obviously bad, then the editors and administrators having difficulty with him shouldn't have a problem following the rules. If El redactor is obviously a sockpuppet, another admin will block--actually, even if he's not OBVIOUSLY a sockpuppet, so there's no need to Irishguy to do it himself without a case ever happening. If links Tecmo inserted were obviously against EL rules, then it should be a simple matter to explain it. But since I and other editors think that the site is a good site and ok by WP:EL standards, it's not ok to revert saying "spam" and not discuss content but go on and on about how it's Tecmo's site. Tecmo isn't inserting it anymore. If the paring of the ELs were obviously against WP:EL, then when Tecmo provides his explanations, or even if he doesn't, all you have to do is say why that doesn't work under WP:EL. But instead, all I here is about him and not about content. And that's the same thing I'm hearing now--I'm hearing nothing about the issue at hand and more about Tecmo, and now me as well.

Response to Miss M. [22], for example, shows you asserting that those who differed from Tecmo made "no attempt at discussing what sort of links are acceptable etc." But if you look at the entry you will note just such a discussion by a number of editors. I, for example, pointed out that Fangraphs "has unique information," and that the same was the case with others that he had deleted, "such as ESPN, Baseball Almanac, Baseball Cube, and Baseball Library." Admin Nishkid said: "I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at Baseball-Reference or any other baseball statistical website." Admin Wizardman wrote: "I ... before putting the links back myself, actually viewed them to see if they were unique. Based on the information they offered, most of the links you've been deleting have in fact been unique." Editor Allansohn said above: "See WP:NOT#LINK which states that 'Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article'. In no way, shape or form do the presence of these links violate Wikipedia policy. As can be seen from the discussion here, there is no consensus that these links should be removed." Baseball Bugs indicated "I use some of them (such as Baseball-Reference and Baseball-Almanac) frequently; and (2) they are not duplicates of each other, each offers unique info, including info different from MLB.com." Given that you indicate in the heading to your comments that you are a "really uninvolved editor," To be frank, I found it peculiar if you did not have some partiality that you would make such a gross misstatement. And, I might point out, that you would repeat that misstatement more than once after.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo has gotten into it with a lot of people. And a lot of people have gotten into it with him. But that's not the point. We AGF here, which means not looking at the actions of an editor for reason for swift judgement etc when talking about a potential sockpuppet. POTENTIAL. Until there's a definitive answer that they're the same person, you could be punishing one person for something another did, or a precedent of behavior another has, and that's not ok. It's like anytime the word sock or vandal is whispered we forget our policies and that's how it's supposed to work. Show me where it says..."assume good faith except when you know that you're right and there's no other explanation"

If Tecmo's obviously such a big problem, then why the need for breaking policy and procedure on such a regular basis by so many editors?

I don't see the policy violations by the other editors that you suggest are there. I see many by Tecmo. There is a reason that he has been blocked repeatedly. I've never been blocked, and I imagine that if you checked the histories of the other editors you would find a similar record on the whole. He is a particularly disruptive editor. I am sure that Wiki would be better if if your talents and those of the other editors involved in this discussion were put to efforts of improving Wiki, rather than addressing his behavior, but when he engages in such disruptive behavior sadly we must address it or the problem grows.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw Epeefleche--good job not pointing out all of the cases where I'm pointing out the problems with Tecmo's behavior. AFAIK--and one of you can spend hours digging through my edit history to double check, I had the pleasure of meeting all of you, and your wikiproject when you couldn't have a civil discussion that would have taken care of matters in oh a couple days at most, and instead have dragged in numbers of outside editors and admins and taken your personal issues or whatever it is all over the wiki.

We are still stalled by Tecmo. See the discussion at [23]. He is filibustering us despite the apparent consensus, and despite his prior comments suggesting that he agrees that the format of the url is unique. This is not about a personal issue. It is about moving forward while a difficult editor disrupts forward movement.

My only issue here is that because you think Tecmo is bad, you and the other editors are ignoring all rules--consenus, no personal attacks, coi, any policy and guideline I can think of off of the top of my head and it's not improving the wiki. However bad a problem is, editor or content or whatever, that doesn't give you or any other editor the right to railroad all of the rules we have in order to OWN. Because you could be right, or you could be wrong. El redactor could be a sockpuppet or he might not be. Tecmo might have been right about ELs, he might not or maybe he was partially right. BUT railroading over the entire system that's in place because you don't like an editor or edits or whatever is OWNing--OWNing articles, OWNing projects, OWNing wiki. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:32, June 13 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring all the rules. I'm not even ignoring any rules. I am the one seeking to enforce consensus. I'm troubled by Tecmo's behavior, but am not engaging in personal attacks. I'm really not sure what your motive is, but your accusations are baseless. You seem quite bright and quite interested, but despite the tenderest admonitions of Tecmo's behavior, you don't appear to be inclined to help address it.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't true that you "and other editors think that the site is a good site". Other than Tecmo, only you do. Tecmo owns the site and he has used two IPs and three sock accounts to repeatedly add it to articles. El redactor had knowledge of my edit history that he shouldn't have had. Like I said, he either magically knew to go 100 edits deep into my edit history to find where I removed the link from other articles...or he just happened to go to those articles and look in the edit history...which isn't likely since he has never edited those articles. And the only two days he has edited are when Tecmo was blocked. El redactor first edited when Tecmo was blocked. His first edit was to add that link back into the article...then he made a series of pointless edits and promptly disappeared. Tecmo pointed to those same pointless edits as an alibi that it wasn't him using a sock. Convenient. Then Tecmo gets blocked again and magcially El redactor becomes active again. I put the sockpuppet report up because I wanted all the evidence in one place. I knew he was going to use his sock again and when he did I blocked him. I didn't open a checkuser case because it isn't necessary. His edits and use of socks are clear: if it walks like a duck, it is a duck. He is a sockpuppeteer using multiple accounts to make POV edits and spam his own website into articles. IrishGuy ^talk 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So Lsi john and transaspie are Tecmo also right? Or are they me? And, this isn't a vote. I've heard several people say "but the site is tecmo's!!! <insert whine here" and no actual reason that the site doesn't fit the WP:EL guidelines or is not a good source. The page btw is protected so this is a great opportunity for you to actually come to the talk page and explain why you think it's a bad link. Please, I'd love to hear something about the content, something other than "it's Tecmo's site!!!!"

Yes, I know you didn't open a checkuser--one was only opened after El redactor was indef blocked. But you're still not getting it. You may be right, but I missed the part where you were granted the powers of all-knowing and all-powerful. Oh wait, you're an admin, you don't have to follow policies, guidelines or procedures. You can wiki-lawyer someone, and then be their judge and jury, unless someone complains. Well guess what? I'm complaining! The unbridled arrogance of assuming that you do know best and therefore don't have to even check is incredible. I'm not standing up and shouting from the rooftops that you're wrong about this, though I think that there's a chance you might be, I'm standing up and saying that whether you're right or wrong, this is the wrong way to do things. The ends don't justify the means. It doesn't matter what Tecmo did or what you think he did. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Not true. The checkuser request on El redactor was issued half a day before he was blocked. Baseball Bugs 23:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to feel like I'm sitting at a table of two-year olds throwing bread at each other and each is screaming that the other did something and that they aren't in the wrong. Stop worrying about who did what to whom and make sure that your own actions are in the clear. How hard is that? Miss Mondegreen talk  23:28, June 13 2007 (UTC)

I should go to the article talk page? The one where you told me You just had to follow the link at ANI and cause trouble here? Either answer the straw poll or shut up?[24] Tecmo has been using socks. Checkusers aren't necessary in cases where it is patently obvious. IrishGuy ^talk 23:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

request that another administrator take over handling of this case

I'm officially requesting that another administrator take over the handling of the sockpuppet case and of Tecmo's current block. The current situation is just getting worse and running completely unchecked. Epeefleche, Baseball bugs and Irishguy should not be on Tecmo's talk page until all of them have cooled off and they can at least pretend to act like real editors. Irishguy in particular is a problem--he's the blocking admin for Tecmo, who's currently on an extended block for sockpuppet evasion of a block, a case opened and closed without a checkuser by Irishguy who has had and continues to have conflicts with Tecmo.

This entire situation needs to be taken out of Wikiproject baseball's hands. If the involved editors and admins cannot cool off and stop attacking each other this is going to get worse. Miss Mondegreen talk  00:12, June 14 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks, nor do I require a "cooling off". He already had one unblock denied (which he blanked) and he has another unblock request up. If another admin wants to peruse the case, it is on his talk page, it is here, etc. Frankly, you are the one who keeps pushing this issue. His block will expire soon. IrishGuy ^talk 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

homophobia and vandalism

Resolved

 – .. for now.

hi user DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) has been making derogatory remarks on the michael jackson edit discussion page towards michael jackson himself and other editors. He refered to michael jackson as a Gay pedophile, he has called people you edit the page freaks and loners for supporting Jackson and resently called me Fagboy. Unforfunately I reacted in an in appropriate manner calling him a smart ass and crap face but have improved my manner and no longer retaliate. I left a message on his user page saying that if he just altered the way he spoke about issues he would be a useful assest to wikipedia. To this he called me a Fagboy. I have also studied his edit history on other articles and the topic of homosexuality seems to come up consistantly and other users have warned him. I hope you will take action on this and would again like tp apologies for my past mistakes. Get back to me on my user page thanxRealist2 11:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has left a request for the user to civilly discuse issues of articles. If the user continues such POV pushing, please bring it up here and remove the resolved tag. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Some folks may remember this guy from last year when he used AOL IPs User:195.93.21.74 and user:195.93.21.69. He was dubbed the "John Wayne vandal", and blocked several times. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of image tags

Dm2ortiz has uploaded a large number of fair-use images without providing any fair use rationales, despite the fact that this requirement has been explained. I tagged his images with {{nrd}}, but he is currently removing all these tags with an edit summary of "vandalism". Dm2ortiz has been unresponsive to my previous attempts to communicate with him, so I am looking for advice as to what to do next. Cheers --Pak21 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where you notified the uploader when the images were tagged, though it is hard to tell with users who blank their talk pages. Do that and also mention to them that the tags should not be removed until the issues have been resolved. If that doesn't work, come back and someone will probably block. If you've already passed this step, just supply some diffs here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There is this version of the user's talk page, where I have been over this with various other images, and the need for rationales has been explained on their current talk page as well. Given this comment by the user, I'm not sure that my comments would be accepted. Restore the tags and leave a message for the user anyway? Cheers --Pak21 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've left a message and rolled back some edits. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dm2ortiz again removed the rationale from Image:Conan logo.gif and added a rationale to Image:I8 Ravager of Time.jpg which made no attempt to explain why an 800 pixel wide image was needed. I again tagged these articles and left a query on the user's talk page, but these have been reverted as "vandalism" and the user has responded with {{User DGAF}}. I don't see what else I can do here. Cheers --Pak21 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ready to block the user, yet, so try one more thing first. Please treat this as an editing dispute and list the image(s) in question at IFD. This will result in review of the image which you aren't going to get with the other tags being removed. Also, the user can not remove the IFD tag before the issue is resolved or they will be formally warned and blocked for sure. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. (I've listed the two images above; the size problem applies to many of this user's images, but I don't see the need in flooding IfD with many nominations at this point). Cheers --Pak21 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the user finally began to understand what was being asked of him. The user has added fair-use rationales to images which were requesting it. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he is both still not addressing the size issue, and is now nominating Image:Ultramarines Dreadnought.jpg (which I uploaded) for deletion as well. WP:POINT in spades? --Pak21 20:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean; as a rule, I feel album covers should be of a low resolution, ala All Music Guide, and not full blown scan as looks closer to what you got here. Having a high resolution is a no-no acording to WP:NFCC 3(b). So, yeah, in summation, I think your tagging the images for deletion based on them being high resolution is valid. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mandrake of Oxford

Mandrake of Oxford AfD

Hello. I wondered if it'd be possible for an admin to look in to this AfD discussion because the situation appears to be degenerating with allegations of this, that, and the other. I nominated the article for the reasons outlined in the opening paragraph, was promptly accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Emnx by User:IPSOS, am currently being subject to a checkuser request by User:GlassFET - both of whom edit the article - and now there are allegations against another user in support of the AfD nomination of the same sort, and a counter allegation by that individual of abuse of process. This all seems a bit much. I am also wondering if simply holding a position in disagreement to another user is enough to warrant allegations of sockpuppetry etc. This, to me, seems to verge on a personal attack and is certainly a failure to assume good faith. Before the discussion gets any worse I wondered if someone might look into it...? Coldmachine^Talk 12:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuing sockpuppetry by blocked user Emnx

There appears to be continuing sockpuppetry over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford. There is one user (Coldmachine) which appears to be an account which predates Emnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and another newly created (Arthana). The evidence is fairly strong. The history of Emnx is repeated attempts to delete Mandrake of Oxford, the latest using sockpuppet SKRINE2. Here is a highlight and link to full evidence for each user:

• Coldmachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Used the exact same language as SKRINE2. Compare edit comment by Coldmachine with AfD nomination by SKRINE2, both use the exact words "is not 'encyclopedic' and seems to be based on commercial-minded exposure/advertising".
  • More evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (2nd)

• Arthana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • User's second edit is to participate in an AfD. When it is pointed out in the Mandrake of Oxford AfD that the user is new, the response comes not from the user, but from an IP address in the range shown by checkuser to have been used by Emnx.
  • More evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (3rd)

How much more obvious does it have to be to get some action taken? IPSOS (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sake. I have nothing to do with these people, cool it down and cease with the personal attacks. I came across the article while looking through your edit history after you reverted edits without discussion on the Dune (novel) article, and I happened to agree that the Mandrake of Oxford article GlassFET created, and which you edited, should be deleted. I nominated it for the same reasons. Sockpuppetry allegations are a huge leap to make from mere agreement with another user. Note I have not accused you and GlassFET of being meatpuppets and yet there is ample evidence for that too: the reason being that I am assuming good faith. Quit persecuting me, and cease your personal attacks. This sort of case is precisely the reason why your participation on wikipedia has proven so controversial to date (judging from your talk pages, and edit history). Coldmachine^Talk 13:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I should also add, I made the decision to make an overt comment on the user talk page of User:Emnx to make it clear that I do not support this users behaviour or attitude towards the AfD, and to distance myself from this individual.

One further note. I refer you (again) to a decision made by an admin here in which it was made clear that "...the case is closed, and I didn't find clear evidence that User:Coldmachine is a sockpuppet. If there's further concern, it could go to checkuser; failing that, he should be able to edit without a shadow on him. Let's move on. MastCell Talk 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)". You persist in these false allegations: I can only assume therefore that these are personal attacks as part of some vendetta you hold against me for merely holding a different view than your own. Coldmachine^Talk 13:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note: a checkuser request has been placed, which I think is an appropriate next step (as I didn't find convincing circumstantial evidence as to sockpuppetry here). Let's disengage for a bit; the checkuser request will hopefully be resolved in the next 12-24 hours, and the AfD will close when it closes. MastCell ^Talk 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Humanities Ref Desk

I'm feeling a bit jaded, so am about to take a Wikibreak. So I could be just being an old miseryguts with this edit ([25]). Appreciate some other admins familiar with the Ref Desks casting an eye over this. At first I thought of pruning out the worst elements, but even if you do that, there's no real Ref Desk question at all. Anyway, if I've been too curmudgeonly, I happily expect to be reverted. --Dweller 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a knowledge-based question to start with, from my read. I'd say good job on sending the poster back under his bridge. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

La Toya Jackson awards and achievements

I recently added a section to the La Toya Jackson article outlining her awards and achievements. The section was unjustifiably removed by User:Metros. I reverted the section back and Metros again removed it, this time claiming that the entire thing must be removed because none of the awards were sourced.

I would like to point out that administrators are suppoed to follow the "good faith" rule, which Metros did not, and that other similar articles such as List of Michael Jackson's awards do not offer citations for every single award. Many of the awards and achievements are common knowledge, and the more obscure awards were found through images of the actual awards themselves, which were recently sold on eBay through a large Jackson family auction. I request that administration look into this issue and restore the awards and achievements section that Metros removed. This would certainly not be the first time that Metros has abused his admin powers and used his own opinions on La Toya Jackson against the article.

71.100.160.189 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the section was justifiably removed by User:Metros. We're not supposed to follow the "good faith" rule when the "good faith" rule goes against majority Wikipedia policies like verifiability and, more importantly, biographies of living people which states: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

So, until that's source, it will be removed. Metros 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that User:Metros is so intent on having this section removed but has no opinion on List of Michael Jackson's awards, which is the same thing, only more conentious. 71.100.160.189 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

since he em.. deleted List of Michael Jackson's awards then I think his views on that article are pretty clear.--Fredrick day 15:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• See distraction fallacy or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've deleted the Michael Jackson award page. Something that large should not go unreferenced since at least May of 2006. Metros 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad I read this thread. The "fact" in the pre-revert version that she is/was a spokesperson for "Star Ice" made me smile and I really needed a smile. --Dweller 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting Deja-vu from this incident - the behaviour (and the IP address) suggests this is User:Rhythmnation2004, who has had similar problem with Latoya based articles (and admin conduct around such articles) in the past. --Fredrick day 15:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is Rhythmnation2004. See the IPs contributions, especially the edits to the IFD debate (where the IP signed a comment as Rhythmnation). Metros 15:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can outside editors double-check my actions at La Toya Jackson regarding the readditions of the awards by Rhythmnation2004? He added them here and then I basically removed all of them; some of them didn't have sources and he felt were "common knowledge" and then the ones with "sources" were links to images in Imageshack which I feel really violates our reliable sourcing standards. Thoughts? Metros 16:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Metros AGAIN abused admin powers by removing awards that were CLEARLY SOURCED. See edit [26], where Metros removed tons of awards and achievements, despite the fact that ACTUAL IMAGES OF THE AWARDS THEMSELVES WERE PROVIDED. This is, once again, Metros using his own personal hatred towards La Toya Jackson to destroy a legitimate article. Furthertmore, no where in Wikipedia does it say that images are not allowed as sources, particularly ones hosted on Imageshack. If this continues to happen, I would be happy to put these images onto a web page and upload it to my web server, and source all the awards to that page. 71.100.17.36 23:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

page move got kerflunkeled--help!

MrsMacMan (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

MrsMacMan's move log shows the following:

• 16:11, 11 June 2007 MrsMacMan (talk · contribs) moved Talk:Primary education to Talk:Elementary school (Primary school and elementary school are two different types of schools. Primary school provides primary education. Elementary school provides elementary education.) (revert)
• 16:11, 11 June 2007 MrsMacMan (talk · contribs) moved Primary education to Elementary school over redirect (Primary school and elementary school are two different types of schools. Primary school provides primary education. Elementary school provides elementary education.) (revert)

Primary education redirects to Primary school Talk:Primary education redirects to Talk:Elementary school

I can't even begin to figure out what happened where. Obviously an admin is needed to undo these--if these are moves that need to be done they should be done properly and probably proposed first. I'm guessing it was in the undoing that something got kerflunkeled. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:41, June 13 2007 (UTC)

Why do they need to be undone? Looks like primary education should redirect to Elementary School, as does the talk page. What's wrong with it? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that MrsMacMan has declared that the Way That Things Are Done In Some Parts of the United States Of American Trumps The Way That Things Are Done Elsewhere In The World? Or have I just not looked hard enough? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've moved it back and move protected it to allow a discussion to actually take place (I would say that the majority of the English-speaking nations refer to these as "primary schools"), and WP:MOS says stick with the original title in cases of US vs British English. Neil ╦ 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a fairish assessment. MrsMacMan is a new editor, and honestly doesn't see the problems created by her moves. She just copy-pasted middle school to junior high and didn't see the problem with that and then redirected the middle school talk page to the junior high talk page and didn't see a problem with that either. She sees the institutions as genuinely different and wants to split the article into two (ASAP!), but has yet to explain any difference (and the article makes no distinction), and hasn't quite grasped consensus or other basic concepts (like responding to talk page comments dated 2005 is pointless). She seems very willing to listen, but it's slightly difficult explaining when I have no earthly idea why she does some things. I'd be on the lookout for more big school moves or forks like this, because I'm not sure she gets it yet, but I do think that they are good faith edits. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:40, June 13 2007 (UTC)

Diluvien

Resolved

Diluvien continues to edit or delete content from articles related to gothic subculture to force them in line with his POV, and accuses those who try to discuss it with him on his talk page of being idiots. He's already been blocked once for personal attacks and disregarding revert rules.--Halloween jack 17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User was blocked for two weeks by Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I noticed that this is the user's fourth block in less than one month. If when the user returns after two weeks and continues actions, I suggest you consider taking this to WP:CN for a permanent ban. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hannahrama

Resolved

 – Recreated article speedily deleted, User:Hannahrama warned.

Hannahrama is with about 99% certainty a sockpuppet of Susannah_Mills. The user has made a personal attack on my talk page, erased a warning from her own talk page, and recreated a previously non-notable, conflict of interest bio of herself at Susannah Mills. I recommend a block. Chicken Wing 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, now isn't that interesting. First edit is to the talkpage for Chicken Wing (talk · contribs), then moves on to recreating a previously deleted article and uploading several redundant versions of an image with no licensing or copyright info (and they appear to be copyright violations from the looks of it)...--Isotope23 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a basis for a block. Even if Hannahrama (talk · contribs) = Susannah_Mills (talk · contribs), I don't see any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry per WP:SOCK. I will warn the editor about the talkpage comment though--Isotope23 17:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Already warned, and I speedily deleted the article under G4 (recreation of deleted material following AfD). I agree that I wouldn't block the account right now, but I left a warning to the effect that continuing to recreate the article or attack other editors will result in a block sooner rather than later. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious behaviour at WP:CHU

Hello, I think someone may be monitoring WP:CHU and intentionally creating accounts and making an edit in them so they cannot be renamed or usurped, earlier today I requested as name change at CHU for: The Sunshine Man to Qmt and it was not registered at the time, it was created just a few hours ago, then User:Bealljoh requested a rename to 5minuteautoloan where the account was only created a few hours ago too, its as if someone is doing this in order to intentionally destroy the chances of people being re-named. The Sunshine Man 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave a note somewhere around WP:CHU explaining that someone is violating WP:DICK and urge the bureaucrats to allow these new accounts to be usurped. Checkuser might be worthwhile if you want to flush out whoever is doing it. – Steel 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally name changes are honored if the name did not exist when the request was filed, and logs exist to show this. Make a note on your request and on talk:CHU. A couple of bureaucrats have checkuser; if it's some IP he could be briefly blocked; if its a regular editor, he needs a stern talking to at the least. Thatcher131 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

'Crats discussed this here and decided they would treat it as disruption and block accordingly.--Chaser - T 19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As a little update... 'Crats are renaming the distruptive accounts, so the the reqeusted name can be usurped and the user be renamed. Anyways, that is what I understood from the discussion... Evilclown93_(talk) 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Yet another one. Yosuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been copying news articles (from the Washington Post, CNN and the L.A. Times among others) and creating articles from their content, despite four boilerplate warnings and a note from EarthPerson (talk · contribs). I deleted several of the articles and have blocked Yosuf for 24 hours. Question is, should it have been indefinite? I'm still wary of blocking users, and would appreciate an opinion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable for now. If he comes off the block and does it again, we could consider a longer block. Hopefully this first block will drive home the "yes, we're really serious about copyright" message. Friday (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Friday... 24 hr is a good "we are serious about this" block. If the message doesn't sink in and copyvio's continue to be posted, I would probably indef block pending a discussion with the editor on his/her talkpage where they affirm that they understand the policy and agree to adhere to it.--Isotope23 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll keep an eye on his contributions when the block expires tomorrow. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

24 hours seems reasonable, with possible increases if the user doesn't get the hint. Indefinite blocking should be reserved for serious repeated violations of policy. exolon 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

AFD edit war

This AfD is getting out of hand. User:WATP added a comment insinuating that new account (User:Coeur-sang) was commenting heavily on AfDs involving User:Vintagekits. Vintagekits reverted/removed the comment. It's now turned into a revert-fest. I'm not sure whether 3RR applies to the Wikipedia namespace, but it's gone well past that point, with incivil edit summaries etc. Could someone have a word? Ta. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Users warned for revert warring, if it continues I'll block. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am getting confusing messeges from different admins. Can you please clear up the position.--Vintagekits 18:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seem like different cases to me, should be resolved with check user, SqueakBox 18:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits behavior over the last 24 hours is unacceptable. Looking through his contribs just in the last 18 hours, I count another revert war (he was involved in one yesterday, too, and reported his opponent at WP:AN3), a personal attack on, of all things, what he thought were another's user's sports preferences (for the record, the user in question is not actually a fan of that team), and multiple incivilities [27] [28]. This is all after a stern final warning from me just yesterday. I would like another admin's opinion on a 24 hour block to put an end to this trail of disruption. Picaroon (Talk) 18:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and block, I was unaware of the previous edit war and personal attacks when I gave that warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I almost did it myself until I saw that Ryan had warned, and that was before I knew about the past history. A block seems to me to be in order. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon, how can what I did be wrong yet you said that opposite yesterday. Yesterday you said that Sqweeakbox removed that comment than that was OK, and then when I follow your ruling exactly then I am in the wrong. All I am look for it a little consistancy.--Vintagekits 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How on earth can this be ruled OK but when I do the exact same today its not. All I am doing is following the advice another admin (John) stated on my talk page yesterday.--Vintagekits 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 24 hours. Picaroon (Talk) 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for getting involved in that. One question for future reference - was it wrong of me to make the aforementioned comment? WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 21:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A question

Hello, recently user Metros deleted an article called List of Michael Jackson awards. There is an ongoing discussion about this move at the user's talk page. The user cited lack of citations for a lengthy period of time and the article's lack of compliance with the biographies of living persons for the deletion. I'm arguing, to put it briefly, that the article should be reinstated because legitimate articles have a right to be on Wikipedia, despite any problems they may have. There are many other articles like the one that was deleted with the same problems, yet no major push exists to extirpate all of them from our encyclopedia. I feel like the user's move was too rash and inappropriate and am requesting that the article be brought back. Thank you for listening.UberCryxic 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Too rash? It's been tagged for sources since May 2006. It is subject to the policies of biographies of living persons as it is an extension of his biography which is subject to removal when sources do not exist, no matter how true or how positive or negative the comments are. Metros 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter for how long it's been uncited. This is not a biography. It's a list of awards. The standards are not that harsh, and certainly virtually never harsh enough to delete the entire article (unless, among other reasons, original consensus decided that such articles shouldn't exist, which isn't the case here).UberCryxic 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I did on Metros talk page, I'm going to point out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, whether UberCryxic thinks that argument "stinks" or not. Bmg916^Speak 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Metros, I have a proposal, which I also explained in your talk page. I will thoroughly cite as much as I can from that article if you reinstate it. If I haven't done so within, let's say two weeks, then you can delete it again. It was not explained in the talk page of that article that legitimate articles met such harsh fates if they went uncited for long periods of time.UberCryxic 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you create it in your User space, then when you're ready to display it, have a discussion with Metros? To recreate it right now when it was correctly deleted, would be rather WP:POINTy. Corvus cornix 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I can do that as well, but since I don't have the original page, I would have to compeltely re-create it. It's a very long article. I'd much rather have the original copy and cite what I can out of it, deleting the rest if necessary. Reinstating the page would actually solve all of our problems under my conditions: the article stays, satisfying me, and it will be cited, satisfying Metros. If not, it can be deleted again. I don't feel like this is an unreasonable request.UberCryxic 19:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to Corvus, WP:POINT doesn't apply here at all. It is so far removed from this situation that to bring it up is ludicrous.UberCryxic 19:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Most recent version of the deleted page has been usefied at User:UberCryxic/List of Michael Jackson's awards to allow for UberCryxic to work on getting a sourced version created. - TexasAndroid 19:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get on this and contact Metros when ready.UberCryxic 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's give Metros a chance to object to my actions, but unless he does object, I think we can consider this discussion closed for now. - TexasAndroid 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that removal without sourcing only applied to contentious material. A list of awards hardly qualifies unless it included negative awards like "Most overrated singer" or something. exolon 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. WP:BLP specifically says it applies to material "whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable". - TexasAndroid 20:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The full sentence reads "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable" - this part of WP:BLP only applies to contentious material, so it's application depends on our definition and judgement of what contentious actually means in this context. exolon 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty obvious that it's contentious, based on this discussion. Corvus cornix 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Michael Jackson has won awards is not contentious. What the article contains is not a problem; I suppose it's "how" it contains that material that's controversial (ie. uncited stuff). That still doesn't warrant blank deletion though. Another thing that irritates me is that no one dealing with Michael Jackson-related articles was contacted over this; the article was authoritatively deleted like it was just another administrative matter, seemingly with little regard that other people would get angry.UberCryxic 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it doesn't apply. This material isn't "highly questionable" or contentious at all. It's a generic list of awards, one among dozens and hundreds that can be found in Wikipedia.UberCryxic 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Corvus cornix 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that argument and have addressed it before. See above.UberCryxic 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, the article did stand for over a year with a Citations Needed tag and no progress on the citations. IMHO, Unsourced article < no article < sourced article. Metros's deletion has finally spurred action. That's part of why I userfied it for you, to facilitate the progress towards a good, sourced, article in the end. That it should take such an extreme act as deleting the page to get things moving toward the proper end result is unfortunate, but after a year tagged I have to wonder what else might have worked. - TexasAndroid 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting something on the talk page would have worked very nicely. That's traditionally what we do in Wikipedia (ie. before a GAR or FAR): warn people prior to the impending doom.UberCryxic 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, this is the version I have. It contains citations for at least 90% of the claims. I will try and find the rest, but that will take some more searching. However, I think this version is good enough to exist as an independent article on Wikipedia and will check with Metros on whether there is agreement or not.UberCryxic 21:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is now back up in mainspace. Take a look at it here. Those who have problems with the article should take their complaints to the talk page first.UberCryxic 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard

• EliasAlucard (talk · contribs)
• See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive258#User:EliasAlucard archived today.

Since the expiration of the 24 hour block (as per previous ANB/I discussion linked above), the user is still raining personal attacks. To be more specific (and this is a partial exert): "This is comparable to some Nazi running around and deleting Jewish stubs and Jewish political userboxes."

When told not to engaged in further personal attacks, he responded with a "I'm just pointing out his racist motives."

-- Cat ^chi? 18:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is only trying to get me banned. He's got something against Assyrians and he's resorting to some kind of censorship by trying to get me banned for speaking up about his motives. He's running around on Wikipedia and he's trying to get everything about Assyrian related stuff deleted (example [29]). We got a dispute here, and I'm not the one out of line. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:20, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

When told not to engaged in further personal attacks, he responded with a "I'm just pointing out his racist motives." - What's wrong with that? If I believe that you have racist intentions in what you're doing, am I not allowed to point that out? EliasAlucard|Talk 21:28, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, I had hoped that 24 hours would have been sufficient. Please calm down. You are accusing an editor of racism - please either provide evidence for these claims or stop making them. Your actions are becoming disruptive; the first thing you did after your 24 hour block was go right back after White Cat, again accusing him of racism. And accusing me of bias. I believe I have now been accused of bias both in favour of and against Turks. Carry on and you will be blocked for a longer period to prevent further disruption. Neil ╦ 22:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images incorrectly deleted on June 6

Would anyone be willing to help me out with a review of fair use images incorrectly deleted on June 6? Some of you may recall that every image with an expired dated disputed fair use tag was deleted on that date, without any review to determine if the deletions were appropriate.

Until June 5, Template:Dated dfu stated that editors should not remove the tag if they address the concern; instead, an administrator should review the editor's effort and remove the tag. Many images were tagged as lacking a fair use rationale on May 31st or June 1st, had fair use rationales added in the next few days but did not have their tags removed, because the tag specifically said not to, and then were incorrectly deleted on the 6th.

Naconkantari stated that he would restore images on request, and he would also manually review his deletions. He stopped editing on June 8 and has not restored images since then, and he never even started a manual review or undeleted any files that were not specifically requested.

Is there an automated way that we can approach the task of reviewing and undeleting these files as appropriate? If not, would anyone be willing to split up the task with me? Depending on how many people would be willing to help, maybe we could divide the task into blocks. TomTheHand 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any automated way to do it, but I'll help out. Just leave me a message on my Talk page with the block you want me to process. --Spike Wilbury 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Death Threat

Resolved

User:Ohmygeoffrey has created an attack page including a threat to kill the subject of it. Please take appropriate action. exolon 19:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)\

This user has no contribs, SqueakBox 19:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The users contribs were deleted. I found them and indef blocked for threats in personal attack articles. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This user should be blocked. If that's what you meant, then great! But if not, then this user should get a indef block. Crap like that is garbage. No need for that nonsense!!!! Throw them out of here! Redsox04 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation of a copyright holder

I came across a page on a NYC artist, Nathan Mellott, on a recent CSD patrol. The page has since been deleted, but images that were uploaded by Bluefortytwo (talk · contribs) remain. These images are the work of the artist, and are tagged with either GFDL release templates, or in some cases release into the public domain templates.

I have contacted the real life Nathan Mellott via email, and he objects to the release of his artwork under these licenses. Will an administrator kindly delete the image contributions in question and indefinitely block the offending user for impersonation and disruption. I will gladly forward the email conversation to an administrator who requests it. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted them all, it appears they have also been dumped into various articles and reverted as appearing as spam for the artists work. I notice from the editors talk the first few were initially given tags not permissible for use on wikipedia, so it looks like rather than work out the proper tagging they just tagged something which works. I'll post a warning and that if they can legitimately release under those licenses they'll need to send in proper permissions. It maybe worth keeping an eye on any further uploads. --pgk 20:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets in voting

• User:Shoopshoop appears to be an account created just to comment and vote for deletions. It has just a dozen or so edits, all related to User:Sexyorge and User:Josmul123 I suspect they are coming from the same IP address to disrupt a vote. The patterrn also suggests: User:Falchamble387 --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest a checkuser--Isotope23 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The rules say, I have to wait for the vote to be closed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing on DYK

I see that we are once again bashing the Church of Scientology on the front page of this project by means of WP:DYK. Since DYK updates are admin actions I am posting here. Would you'all please take a look at the fact that with about 270 articles related to Scientology on Wikipedia out of how many total articles, DYK "facts" critical of Scientology seem to show up with alarming frequency? Most are the work of one editor, Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and she has had an inordinate number, well over 30, DYKs in recent months on her anti-cult soap-boxing (see User:Smee/DYK#Created). But I do not fault Smee here as all she can do is nominate, it takes an admin to elevate and Howcheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be her willing partner. --Justanother 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Are any of those claims actually factually inaccurate? DYK works in tunnel vision, the main concern is just finding 6 articles for the next update, then doing that update. I am not aware of any attempt to balance the long-term content of DYK to give equal time to various sides, so I wouldn't blame Howcheng, he does a whole lot of DYK unrelated to Scientology, just choosing items from the available options. --W.marsh 20:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like the DYK fact in question is properly sourced within the article (by no less than the New York Times). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for your input. WM, I have complained about this before and Howcheng is well aware of my concern, I think. HBWS, there is something wrong if DYK is being used for POV-pushing. --Justanother 20:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you User:Hit bull, win steak, for verifying that this information is indeed factual, and sourced to reputable secondary referenced citations in the article itself. I had thought that under an agreement with Bishonen (talk · contribs), Justanother (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) and myself were to avoid posting to WP:ANI in the future about each other. I see that Justanother has reneged on this, but I will restrict myself to this post itself. Smee 20:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

• See Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/DYK for DYK related to Scientology (one or two Scientology-related per week out of 30 - 35 DYK per week) and User:Smee/DYK#Created for total Smee DYK. Smee formerly worked mostly on est-related articles but has expanded her "cult"-bashing. Smee's cult-bashing accounts for a disturbing percentage of DYK entries. (EC) And Smee, re your above . . . oh puleese, I said this is not about you and I am not looking to get you in trouble; I just want this addressed. --Justanother 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I am unaware of having engaged in any Scientology-bashing. In fact, I distinctly recall being critical of some of Smee's DYK nominations (see Talk:The Pit: A Group Encounter Defiled). Smee just happens to be a prolific editor who posts many nominations to DYK and I do a lot of DYK updates. You just happen to be looking at the intersection of two sets a la a Venn diagram. howcheng {chat} 20:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I could be easily accused of having a pro-Frank Lloyd Wright POV, what with all the recent FLW-related DYK entries submitted by User:IvoShandor. howcheng {chat} 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not an argument. If the most prolific editors get a 20-30% ratio on DYK (out of 1.7 million articles) just because they are prolific you are opening the door to any paid PR agent to promote their clients POV on the WP front page. COFS 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that paid PR agents probably aren't going to be able to source their articles to multiple secondary sources. howcheng {chat} 23:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Howcheng, this "cult-bashing" thing has been going on for months and I have objected to it before. I think that putting up obscure trash that only serves to bash the Church is Smee's agenda; I would be disappointed if she found a willing accomplice. Surely you are not saying that today's anti-Scientology crap was the best of the noms? --Justanother 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much everything that gets nominated for DYK status will make it assuming it meets the minimum criteria of being 1,500 characters and well-referenced. Nominations where the subject matter is disputed may be skipped as well. In this case, there were no such objections. I made sure that the article was long enough (check), created or expanded in the last 5 days (check), and well-referenced (check). If the article passes the criteria, it goes up. There's not much more to it than that. howcheng {chat} 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And for a discussion on that, and to see how multiple editors/Admins weighed in on it: Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Smee 20:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

• Thank you for this point of clarification. This report to WP:ANI by Justanother (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) is a frivolous, disruptive use of this page, and an attack on a respected administrator. Smee 20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

• Ps, Smee, NOW, with your "frivolous, disruptive use of this page, and an attack on a respected administrator", you are doing EXACTLY what we told Bishonen we would not do. --Justanother 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see, so now you get to decide what is and is not appropriate for your own posts to ANI ? Smee 20:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

• Huh? I don't really get that. Anyway, we should knock off bashing each other, that is what we agreed to. This is about the, to me, undue weight given to your very specific POV on DYK. You are not being faulted for self-nominating your work; I am faulting either the elevating admins or whatever is causing other noms to be passed over to repeatedly play the cult-bashing game on the front page of this project. --Justanother 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Since I've just nominated the page for AfD, it might be worth considering to take that DYK down. But I'll leave that decision up to others. Mangojuice^talk 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Curious if anyone disagrees with User:W.marsh and User:Hit bull, win steak's assessment, above? Smee 21:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

It is very possible that a neutral point of view may come out as critical of Scientology. ^(H) 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is usually the one-sided and uninformed views that comes out that way. The ones that rely totally on internet criticism of Scientology to form them. Informed neutral POVs often come out neutral and sympathetic to the beliefs of others that are trying to improve their lives and the lives of their loved ones and associates. But we are talking about the undue weight of repeated front pages bashes, not one particular entry. --Justanother 21:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is quite probable that a neutral point of view will come out as critical of Scientology. I suggest that you try and get hold of the recent BBC documentary on the organisation and watch it with an open mind. One incident of a screaming presenter aside it is damning inditement of the organisation which is very free from bias. David Newton 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have seen that and I invite you to watch it again. Sweeney went in as a troll with the stated mission to see if the Church would go after him. He had no interest in a neutral presentation, he was looking to make trouble and see if the Church came after him and all they did was follow him around as he played his little game; pretty innocuous, I would say. ps, did you see the Church counter-documentary? It is online. --Justanother 23:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not noticed any particular POV on the front page, other than the one you seem to be trying to create in suggesting the removal of certain articles. If you feel there are too many articles critical of Scientology, I would suggest you write some that aren't, using reliable sources, and then nominate them for DYK. If this can not be done, then there is no undue weight being given to the current articles. Bushytails 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally thing the DYK could have gone without the mention of the church. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the entry from the current DId you Knows. An article for deletion linked to on the main page does not look good. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to this, though at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Martin Ingram, a question about the timing of this AFD nom was brought up, by User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Smee 21:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

I don't usually pay much attention to DYK, but while I do think that it would seem odd to readers who regularly peruse the DYK to see a preponderance of articles on a single topic, particularly if it's a contentious one, I don't think that there is any blame to be laid or sanctions/censures to be levelled. IMO the only logical solution is for those editors who believe the DYK should be more balanced to either create, expand, improve, or troll (not in the WP:TROLL sense) new articles and craft suitable factoids for submission to DYK. Smee's motives may not be innocent - I can't see into someone's heart over the internet - but the only way to frame this is as an active editor making lawful (morally and legally) use of a WP service. Something that any editor can do, should s/he feel sufficiently motivated. Anchoress 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Smee 00:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

Sticking together: DYK admin closes AfD out of process

I see that User:Blnguyen, another admin invested in the DYK (and another admin that has been elevating Smee's noms, IIRC), has closed the AfD on Eugene Martin Ingram less than four hours after it was opened by User:Mangojuice. Mango raised good points that should be considered and I think that the AfD is far from WP:SNOW and not a candidate for speedy close, especially as three of the nine Keep votes are bloc votes from the Wikipedia Chapter of the Scientology Haters Club. --Justanother 01:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Sarah777

I am being harassed by User:Sarah777. While there was already some history between us, this current phase happened following an AfD for an article she created as a POV fork of British Isles. Following that, she blames me and promised to another user to hold a grudge against me. (This diff is a particularly humorous example of her choice of attitude towards me, as is this one.) In a subsequent banning (for attacking the admin that blocked her for 3RRing the AfD'd article), she was released from the block on agreeing to "even forgive Sony" and removed what she called "anti-sony-ism" (and what she called "sony's anti-sarah-ism") from her talk page.

From then until after the weekend, I did not edit wikipedia. Upon returning, I made some posts to Talk:British Isles (in exchange with another user). Sarah replied to these saying that my objection to her fork ruined my credibility. I removed this as a personal attack, and she reposted it in a more civil tone. I responded saying that the AfD has been decided by WP:SNOW and that it had been a "universal" decision. She took objection to this and warned me that "We Irish didn't gain our FREEDOM by forgetting injustice." While I was away, a proposal to move the Irish Potato Famine article had been made. This had been by Sarah - however, I do object to the move, I voted as such. A moment later, Sarah moved the article citing WP:SNOW and "universal" consensus, a clear reference to our exchange just previous. When other editors told her that this was in appropriate, she said that the rules "ALWAYS appear to favour the holocaust deniers like Sony." Subsequent posts in agreement with me were responded by her naming me as part of a cabal against her. She responded to my posts by attempting to blacken my posts as sarcasm and incivility, stalking. Apart from being untrue, in each of these, she took the approach of quoting policy - a cause of annoyance to her during the build up to her creating the fork that was AfD'd.

I warned her twice (here and here). The last of these she removed as "vindictive nonsense" and placed a similar notice on my page and went to User:Gaillimh claiming that I was threatening her. (I saw this only while going through her contribs. while collecting diffs for here.) I am especially concerned to see the problem resolved as issues with Sarah's behaviour are long standing. An informal RfC was opened after the forking incident. That was responded with concern about her before being cut short. She has harassed User:Bastun and at least one long-term editor (User:Djegan) has left Wikipedia because of her behaviour. I have in the past attempted to discuss matters with her, but to no avail. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• "as happened recently with "Swatjester" who blatantly abused his power in a personal dispute" - oh dear, Sarah. I didn't know that DJ had left on account of Sarah but as I'm now tangentially involved, will stay out of any decisions here. - Alison ☺ 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Djegan - my bad, it would actually appear not. I've just looked through his contribs and, contrary to my assertions, he's actually alive and well. I just hadn't see him since this, "Note to serious editors: get out while you can", which was around the time he posted his leaving note on his user page. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass template changes by User:Java7837

This user is screaming through articles starting with A changing the {{reflist}} template to <references /> without any justification. Any chance of nipping this in the bud? Chris Cunningham 21:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am only doing this for articles with 15 or less references as it increases the font it makes it easier to read --Java7837 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Footnotes says that "An older system using {{ref}} and {{note}} templates is still common. Converting this older system to the new <ref>...</ref> system can make the references in an article easier to maintain." and further says that <references/> should be used. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Did anybody think to contact this user before running off to get the administrators? The Evil Spartan 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave it five minutes, though I forgot how uppity some janitors get when mortals request their council. My apologies. Chris Cunningham 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Further info: User:Java7837 ([[30]]) has taken it upon him/herself to mass replace the template {{reflist}} template with <references/>, under the apparent believe that {{reflist}} is the same as the old {{ref}} template. Other editors besides myself have been less than pleased, have written on Java7837's talk page, to no avail. Most recently, this editor has edited his/her talk page to delete all the complaints and arguments -- see the diff here showing the complaints/arguments before Java did this.

Moeron (see his/her comment above" as best I can tell is Java's sockpuppet, so I wouldn't count his/her comments for much. Evidence: Moeron left a comment on my talk page which was handsigned as being from moe.RON (i.e., typed or pasted in, rather than using the four tildes), but the edit history of my talk page shows that the comment was actually used made by Java -- see diff here. I am doing more research on this towards possibly reporting this sockpuppetry more formally, but in the meantime it would be nice if the mass edit of the {{reflist}} template could be halted, which is going against the consensus process on at least two articles that I & other editors have a long-term commitment to. (Alaska and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act). --Yksin 23:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Moeron isn't a sock. Java7837 was quoting Moeron on your talk page, not signing a Moeron post. IrishGuy ^talk 23:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This template exists for a reason, which is to make the different formatting options easier to use, and to add class="references-small" which can be customized in each user's css. I don't see any argument against reverting all of his edits. — CharlotteWebb 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

15 or less references is not exactly a correct statement. Australian Broadcasting Corporation had 21 refs. If you think the print is too small, you can adjust it in your monobook.css. The default setting is .references-small { font-size: 90%;}. If you set it to 100% you can get the same effect without disrupting other readers. — CharlotteWebb 23:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy: I guess it's possible that Java simply didn't bother to sign his/her post, & was merely quoting Moeron. But whether they're socks of each other or not, both seem to be under the false impression that the {{reflist}} template is the same as the old {{ref}} template. Note Moeron's argument above, which favors replacing the old {{ref}} template with the <ref>...</ref> system. Fine as far as it goes. Problem is, Java isn't replacing the {{ref}} template, s/he is replacing the {{reflist}} template. And lest you caution that Java has a different rationale for doing this, note that twice s/he quoted Moeron's argument on my talk page with approval, apparently without having time to mentally digest the difference between a three letter word (ref) and seven letter word (reflist). And of course Java continues to make these changes without seeking consensus on any of the articles s/he's changing. This isn't WikiGnome activity -- it's disruptive, annoying, time-wasting, and productive of continuing complaint. Just see Java7837's talk page -- and make sure to check the history in case s/he has deleted the complaints again. --Yksin 23:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. S/he has. indeed deleted them again. Hard to WP:AGF here. --Yksin

I have asked this editor to please address the concerns and to cease the bluk replacement without discussing the matter. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Yksin 00:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped and is discussing it now. The large number of changes obviously were made without discussion and were apparently controversial. I went back and reverted most of the conversions back to there originial form. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

{{reflist}} exists to make the notes smaller, but there is no mandate to use reflist for everything, see Template:Reflist#Usage. The original edits were too marginal to do on their own, but it is just as bad to change <references /> to reflist without thinking, as many editors do. But I don't think either of these are as controversial as using Ref converter. Gimmetrow 01:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Hajji Piruz - Unencyclopedic POV

I would like to request your attention to disturbing and unencyclopedic POV conduct of User:Hajji Piruz. He has recently created a collage image out of two different and unrelated images as admitted here [31]. He is now trying to reinsert this handmade fake as a source in the article Azeri Cartoon Controversy in "Iran" Newspaper. I would like to note here that part of the image is taken without proper copyright permission from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Now Hajji Piruz along with User:Houshyar are trying to push this POV by revert warring in the article. Can you, please, pay attention to this persistent behavior, which is simply unencyclopedic and damaging to the scholarship in Wikipedia. Thanks. Atabek 21:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the pictures are fake, I didnt "hand make" anything. Instaed of uploading two different images, I combined them and uploaded them at the same tim. WHy dont you read the edit summary of the picture: [32]

I cleary said that I created the image using two other images, and I provided the links to both images. Anyway, I undid the collage and it now shows only the protesters. Also, the Image doesnt appear to be copyrighted.Hajji Piruz 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

63.98.135.196 unhelpful edits

Honestly I'm not sure whether this calls for a block, but User:63.98.135.196 just keeps putting a large dump of source material at Preventive war: see [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

Warnings on both the article and user talk pages have no effect; 63. seems to think that because Preventive War is poorly sourced and needs some help, it's ok to dump this material on it. ("Sketchy article plus fully referenced, and relevant, quote dump is better than article alone.") It would seem he's actively revert warring elsewhere as well, by the looks of his user contributions page. Perhaps a stern warning from an admin will help -- the guy is editing in good faith, he just doesn't seem to be willing to co-operate at all.

Eleland 21:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple libel

I just blocked 172.201.238.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated vandalism of Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, mostly the insertion of claims that he was anti-American, involved with the Taliban, etc. It seems like those edits should probably be removed from the page history as libel, but I thought I'd double-check. --Masamage ♫ 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the sockpuppets

Somebody is creating User IDs at a fast rate to vandalize Ravioli and David Oreck. I would ask for page protection, but what we really need is IP address blocks for this guy. Besides the IP addresses that he has used to hit the articles, he's also used:

• Adumbemo (talk · contribs)
• PlayazAthleticx (talk · contribs)
• WhItEzOmBiEfAn (talk · contribs)
• Afagaga (talk · contribs)
• Hjholla! (talk · contribs)

Corvus cornix 23:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Treaties

Dear Administrator

It is unfortunate that several entries on Mutual Defence Alliances and Treaties from the Nineteenth Century have been deleted. An example of such is the "Treaty of Melbourne", it may be helpful for me to note that these entries were present at least a fortnight ago on the "List of Treaties" entry. They were extremely useful in proving the true nature of late nineteenth century diplomacy, a topic ususally covered in history studies at secondary schools and consequently these articles were advantageous to study. There were about 5-10 of these articles, some were stubs. However I consider the posting of entries only on the more well-known treaties to present a lop-sided view, which Wikipedia I am sure does not intend.

Thank you

Please consult the talk or discussion page of the article you are concerned with, as well as the edit summaries in the article history, to see if any reasons were given for the removal of the information you believe should be included. If you disagree with the reasons, or if no reasons were given, you should raise the matter on the talk page and see if a consensus can be reached. Happy editing. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has a long history of violation of WP:Civility as well as has been blocked for 3rr violations. Today in order to gain a consensus on a talk page edited a comment and signed my name to it. When in fact I didn't sign it. [38]. This portion was lefy unsigned by 70.177.181.129 [39] [40]. I later placed that he had signed it [41] . I find this to be a bit vandalistic in nature. BoriquaStar 00:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• 74.230.193.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) almost every edit has been a reversion or an edit that has caused an edit war. Has been given a final warning already. He is back on reverting multiple articles Falsely states wikipolicy, as in youtube links when one prominant article Alpha Phi Alpha used youtube links [42]. Has been brought to AIV already [43] Almost all of his edits are reverts or large deletions. BoriquaStar 00:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  I didn't look at all the youtube links removed from that article, but if it was copywritten material in those links or it was unclear if the uploader had permission to post the video there, per WP:EL those should have been removed.--Isotope23 00:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  Maybe I'm crazy... but after looking through 74.230.193.91's contributions I'm more inclined to give him a barnstar than a warning or block. Vandalism removal? reversion of unsourced negative material? Looks like 74 is doing a great job... Am I missing something here?--Isotope23 00:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the youtube links? There was no copyright. His reversions or deletions on street gang Dominicans Don't Play have left the article with almost 90% missing. I was placing fact tags on the article and changing things on the article. Take a look at not just his reversions, but also the edit warring that it has led to in many articles. BoriquaStar 00:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure songs are copyrighted unless released into the public domain. Every single edit I've checked by this user, especially on the article in question, appear to be accurate. --Haemo 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[[kinda]] knowling making false accusations of sockpuppetry Personal attacks

[[kinda]] has made several accusations of my being a sock puppet, despite knowing that this is not true. I believe this is a Personal attack and would like it to stop. See the following diff:

1. [[44]]
2. [[45]]

See previous warning at: [[46]]

Previous check into sockpuppet accustion unfounded: [[47]].

DPeterson^talk 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)