Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read 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

Betacommand and SVGs

(Moved to AN/B --Random832 (contribs))

Timestamp --Random832 (contribs) 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not resolve my complaint concerning Hu12. concerning wikistalking

I filed a complaint concerning the Wikistalking by Hu12, and his unwarranted removal of my editing privileges. I also noted that he had purged his talk page (and my comments withouut my consent) as part of a larger cover up. This all seems to have simply faded off into the sunset.

Also, there was the important issue concerning unilateral declarations by wiki admins which find that certain worthwhile links are spam. That too has disappeared.

I did try to get some answers (and even work out a resolution) to this matter. Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHu12&diff=203061872&oldid=203061030

Hu12 deleted my attempt to communicate as "unwelcome harassment." He did this without my consent.

7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Stan

I don't know all the specifics of this situation, but I noticed that this use of the rollback tool at List of museums in Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is rather troubling. There might be some debate about which museums are notable enough to list there, and there might be some debate about which links are relevant. Still, these issues should be discussed on article talk or user talk pages. I'd advise Hu12 to only use the rollback tool for clear vandalism, and 7&6=13 to not get overheated in discussions. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion for any interested. The harassment comment may not have been appropriate, but Hu12 doesn't need your consent to remove messages from their talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't want to talk to you, he doesn't have to. Nor does he require your 'consent' to do anything to his talk page. HalfShadow (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Linkspamming is vandalism and disruptive. Past discussion is located here. 7&6=thirteen violated WP:WPSPAM, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not a link repository (Arbitration policy/Past decisions) 7&6=thirteen has Falsley and improperly accused myself and Barek of wikistalking and sock puppetry.

Wikipedia:Harassment#User_space_harassment

→"Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing suspected sockpuppet and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment."

Accusing someone without justification of wikistalking and sock pupetry is also a form of personal attack. --Hu12 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I really think you should have discussed the linkspamming issue first. I reviewed 7&6=13's edits a little more, and while he may have added an excessive number of links and references to those articles, there really should have been more discussion on his talk page and some attempt to reach common ground, instead of putting the external link warning template there. Maybe some frustration could have been averted with more discussion. It doesn't excuse 7&6's angry words, of course, but a lot of arguments can be avoided if people discussed stuff instead of immediately getting frustrated. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

135+ to the same url target, which resulted it him being reported to WikiProject Spam, after sufficient warnings by others (which went dismissed and ignored). --Hu12 (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it particularly concerning that 7&6=thirteen has been quite active on wikipedia during the full time period the other discussion was taking place, oddley within hours of it moving into the archive.. this is posted..*cough*..WP:POINT?--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, mostly encyclopedic edits to lighthouses. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and not according to this post "Before I go back to the Wikipedia administrators complaint page ...you should know that I have not forgotten what you did"

History clearly points to WP:POINT, lets review;

• "Wikistalker and sock puppet, Lay off. I will have recourse. You are not immune. "
• "Wikistalkers, I'm being wikistalked by Barek and HU12."
• "Wikistalker and sock puppet, Lay off. I will have recourse. You are not immune"
• "Wikistalkers by erstwhile administrators deserve severe sanction"
• "I for one would not stand silently and idly by while the Wehrmacht makes the Jews disappear into the railroad cars."
• "...will not let this rest without their being brought to justice -- they are bullies..."
• "This was WIKISTALKING "
• "he was unmaking history and deleting my accusations of misconduct, which I put back on his page This is a Watergate style cover up."
• "I want these peoples' administrative privileges removed "
• " have been wikistalked by an administrator Hu12 and his coconspirator, Barek"
• "It is the very definition of Wikistalking"
• "When Czeckoslovakia falls, Poland can't be far behind"
• "goons"

WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS and now WP:POINT. hmmm, appears to be tendentiously continuing in pursuit of a certain point..--Hu12 (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• How about we "resolve" it by blocking 7&6=thirteen for being a dick. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that "resolution"..--Hu12 (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point, a block would be punitive, not preventative. I'll also note that 7&6=13 has been talking amicably with Barek at User talk:Barek, and they're talking constructively about editing articles. I also left 7&6=13 some pointers on my talk page regarding how to clean up source citations and how to keep links out of external links sections when they're already used as a reference. I don't think there's any reason for any sort of block unless Mr. 13 gets out of line again, and I doubt that will happen again. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Guy, I may (or may not) agree with your assessment of User:7&6=thirteen but, a newbie like me shouldn't have to remind you or other long standing users of the civility issues. BTW I've corrected the typo in your comment. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Please don't be patronising. m:DICK is a very long-standing guideline, and 7&6=thirteen is violating it by repeatedly coming back to make the same complaint that has been dismissed every time. When everybody tells you that yo are wrong, it's wise to at least allow for the possibility that it's because you are wrong, something that 7&6 does not yet seem to have taken on board. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • User:7&6=thirteen I think the issue was pretty much resolved with the last conversation and above. Perhaps, you could review your own behaviour before lashing out at people. You should also take note of the civility issues and appropriateness of some of your statements regarding "cover-ups". Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems like the responses of everyone are blowing this out of proportion: the only difference is that admins ought to know better than trying to fight fire with fire... Coldmachine^Talk 10:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sum 41

User:Hoponpop69 has recently decided to remove all genres from the infobox of Sum 41 that were not sourced. When I provided a source, he stated that it was not a reliable source. I argued, but I eventually attempted to make him happy and removed all the sourced subgenres from the infobox and replaced them with more general genres and a "disputed genre" link to the musical styles section of the page, according to Template:Infobox Musical artist. He reverted my edit several times without explanation and gave me a level 1 content removal warning. I had attempted to discuss the matter with him earlier, to no avail. After he gave me the warning, I reverted his edit and replied. He then responded by giving me another warning, this time for introducing unsourced content into the article. I really don't know what to do now, and I don't want to start an all-out edit war with him and I see in his block log that he has had problems in the past with civility and such, so I would really like this resolved as soon as possible. Timmeh! 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I left him a message saying that content disputes are not vandalism. Disputes like this should be discussed on the article talk page, not via vandalism warnings. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm endorsing the user's motives, but from what I can see, they didn't offer any vandalism warnings, just the removal of sourced info, which just serves to inflame the situation since Timmeh is an established user Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a spillover from the Flyleaf dispute to be honest, although I could be wrong. Orderinchaos 16:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Grawp mass talk page protection

I've already announced this on IRC, but I have just pre-emptively locked all user talk pages of any suspected or confirmed account of User:Grawp. Anyone who has any experience with this user will know why I've done this - for those who don't, Grawp is a page move vandal with over 200 known sock accounts and more appearing by the minute. Since most of his accounts are now blocked, he's recently taken to (I assume with the help of a bot) adding an unblock template to each of his talk pages, along with a 2MB image that will cause even the fastest connection to lock up. This of course attracts the attention of unsuspecting admins, who immediately start cursing their computers when they hang up. To avoid this, all known accounts have had their talk pages indefinitely protected - this does include IP's, which I am about to go back through and review, but I'm afraid even those we can't really afford to unprotect for long, if at all. He immediately picks up on any page he is able to edit. Admins should delete (G3) and immediately salt any of these talk pages they encounter. For a while, at least, it may be a good idea to use popups to view page histories before viewing the actual page at CAT:RFU, because more accounts are constantly surfacing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed this one My mistake, it's been blocked. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify; they are about 1900KB, or nearly 2 million bytes in size. So yeah, they're pretty big, and will probably lock your browser, unless you load the history, like Hersfold said. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone is curious, the pages are 12 copies each of two absolutely-positioned objects: a large table-background-color image of Goatse, and a smaller pure ascii-art "LOL WUT" avocado. --Random832 (contribs) 04:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The link included in the edit summaries takes you to the same thing. Some way to snip the edit summaries so unsuspecting newbies don't get lured in? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the page works for that. --Random832 (contribs) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:WilliamMThompson suicide post

In the interests of never taking such things lightly and per the suggestions at WP:VIOLENCE, I have blocked User:WilliamMThompson and fully protected User talk:WilliamMThompson due to this edit. Please review and let me know if I handled this correctly and whether any notifications are necessary. Thanks. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Misspelling is common, especially in Australia" ?? Seems most likely to not be serious, a suspected sock thwarted. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't sound serious, but I didn't want to take any chances with such things.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and agree. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that this kind of threat, even if it is not meant seriously, should always be taken seriously, as ou cannot always be 100% certain whether or not it is a plea for attention. Remember that there are always better options than taking your own life, always. I don't mean to encourage drama in this already overdramadic noticeboard, but we have to ensure that all necessary precautions are taken. Valtoras (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to error on the side of caution here. Not knowing who to notify in this particular case might be a problem, unless we have access to the subject's IP address. But the person whom I believe this party is a suspected sock of, as well as his other suspected socks, has displayed a number of behaviors which lead me to think that the possibility is a real one. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think blocking was the right thing to do, and in any case he would've been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of Tom.mevlie. At this point there is nothing more to do. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:TOV. Bstone (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering we don't know the location of the editor in question, or even necessarily his real name, I've sent an e-mail to the Foundation advising them of the situation. They're probably the ones who can most easily determine which authorities to contact, and what name, if any, to report. John Carter (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Stone put to sky continues to make personal attacks

User:Stone put to sky has been blocked for 3RR violations, using multiple sockpuppets, personal attacks against me, and violating WP:Username by making attack accounts on my name.[1][2]

Warned again one month ago for new attacks.[3]

Continues now with new attacks.

"Blah blah blah. One hoppy 'roo can confuse even the best tracker. Trainor is Ultramarine's boy, and all here know it. What comes out of one goes right in the other, in and out in an ugly smear, and neither could reckon straight on the least part of their back yard, much less anything outside their beloved U.S. Keep your eyes on the content, boys, and stop -- how do ya say it? edit warring? Stop. I have nothing wrapped up in this place and will be happy to take your names before the grand board of hoo-hahs."[4]

"But anyone who knows wikipedia and has been around this page for any length of time knows that the only person who behaves dishonorably here is you"[5]

"You've been kicked out of Wikiipedia so many times that your backside has treadmarks on it."[6]

Aho aho is a sockpuppet of Stone put to sky.[7].Ultramarine (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that some strong words are needed to calm everything down. Maybe some informal admin mediation? But certainly the atmosphere is too bitter.

As for the request user result, what does "likely" mean for Wikipedia's purposes? Is it treated as the same as "confirmed", or what? Sky has already been blocked for sockpuppet use. If people believe he is doing it currently then that should be stopped, especially as it is not a declared sockpuppet account. Given the level of disagreements over the article in question using sockpuppets is even more dangerous than usual - assuming he is. John Smith's (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As a point of reference, of the four "likely" sockpuppets listed in the checkuser request, only User:Thecryptthing was indefinitely blocked - the others were not, however. I'm not sure why this is. John Smith's (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Thecryptthing was blocked after an earlier case, along with the others that were, in that case,  Confirmed. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why that account was blocked. But what happens with "likely" results? I think this is where I'm not clear on what should be done with these other accounts. It is suspicious that of the three not blocked, only Aho aho continued to post - the others stopped. John Smith's (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Moriss levy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Thecryptthing (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Aho aho (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • YumpinYimini (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Ultrastoopid (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • UntimelyMaroon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Are all abusive sockpuppets of User:Stone put to sky per User:Thatcher's checkuser. All those accounts need to be blocked and SPTS needs to be blocked as an abusive sockpuppeteer. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So can we get an administrative remedy here? A timed topic ban perhaps? Otherwise he will keep attacking these pages with socks. - Merzbow (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine and Stone put to sky have been editing warring on the same controversial page for months. I agree with User:John Smith's, the only person, to my knowledge, who has not been personally involved with Stone put to sky that some "informal admin mediation" is appropriate.Trav (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Close, but it's really Ultramarine and SPTS's army of sock puppets, including two that were crated to disparage UM's user name, that have been edit warring. User:Stone put to sky should be blocked for violating policy and it will end two problems. --DHeyward (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Meowy deleted talk page

User:Meowy deleted talk page documents and edits on Talk:Armenian Genocide. this is not first. i want to NPOV article. i have documents. some peoples blocks and delete this documents from article also from Talk Page. someone hide facts.--Qwl (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The overall diff for reference. Grandmasterka 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The removed talk-page material was clearly off-topic and would not have led to any improvement to the article. In the past the talk page for Armenian Genocide has been particularly badly affected by off-topic clutter that often pushes out legitimate and constructive contributions. I should also point out that the article and talk page has recently become a magnet for those seeking only arguments due to an email that has been sent to http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-March/092492.html a wikipedia mailing list, and that has also been mentioned in Turkish and Armenian websites, news reports, and forums. Meowy 16:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, that email sent to Wikipedia originated from "The Turkish Association for Fighting Against Unfounded Genocide Allegations", based in Erzurum's Ataturk University, an institution renowned for churning out genocide-denialist propaganda. They are curently running an email campaign against Wikipedia. Quote, from their chairman, "When you browse the English version of Wikipedia which publishes its content in various languages, one notices an issue in complete contrast with the Wikipedia principles. In the english website while the article on Armenian allegations concerning the incidents of 1915 contain all the thesis of the Armenian diaspora, the Turkish thesis are excluded. The web site allows users to make editions in all subjects, but it does not allow edition of the article on Armenian allegations. The site only provides the theses of the Armenian diaspora. This is a great injustice against the Turkish Nation". Meowy 21:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

if there is magnet you think somethink is wrong. rules are clear. deniers documents and references are clear. but Armenian Genocide full biased. and someone still try to block article and also talk page. Where is Free encyclopedia NPOV rules? and where is Admins? trolling!POV FORK--Qwl (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sesshomaru and Tyar

• On User talk:Sesshomaru there is an edit war going on between User:Sesshomaru and User:Tyar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what Tyar's problem with Sesshomaru is even after looking at his contribution history, but this sort of harassment and crap is unacceptable. Tyar was blocked for a week just now and I endorse it. Grandmasterka 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sesshomaru has dealt with a lot of sockpuppets lately, mostly from banned user JJonz. Redrocket (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

He also is very quick to call things vandalism whether they are or not. A recent example involved User:Tylar, and is probably the origin of Tylar's bad behaviour, if yer curious.[8] 86.44.26.69 (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, but for the sake of discussion, the blocked user you're referring to is actually Tyar. Tyar was blocked yesterday, and has also been blocked again today as 75.183.4.204 for personal attacks and sockpuppetry.

User:Luksuh massively adding {{references}}

I've got several articles in my watchlist with this user's last edit adding {{references}} with an edit summary of {{references}}. He added this template to hundreds of articles when it is obviously not necessary. For example, there's no need to add this template in a music album article. Please refer to the user's contribs for evidence Should we revert all his edits? Maybe ask him about this? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see why it's unjustified in an album article such as this or this. I see no reason to revert these, as they appear to be in good faith and accurate. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Are music albums exempt form WP:V and WP:RS, then? Guy (Help!) 21:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• What admin action is needed here? Tiptoety ^talk 21:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that if an album article has some information about how many units were sold or in what charts the album peaked, the template should be placed. But like the first example you have (Noble Justice) there's no need to add this template.

I also understand these edits are made in good faith, but that does not mean they are correct. That's why I asked it here. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Noble Justice is Young Noble's debut studio solo album, released in 2002.{{fact}} --Haemo (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ahem. All articles require references. That is all. ➪HiDrNick! 23:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would of course agree usually, but most album articles have so little content, amounting to ' x is an album by y' and a picture of the album cover, they are IMHO only worth redirecting to the artist anyway. We typically don't need refs in the lead sentence, so if there's only one sentence, a listed ref might be longer than the article. But if people want a source for 'x is the third album by y' or, rarely, a list of the songs on the album, all of which is often in the article about the artist anyway, I suppose we could have it. Sorry- rant over lol.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 00:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yours is an excelent arguement against the strange practice of alblums inheriting notability from their artist. But that's neither here nor there.  :) ➪HiDrNick! 02:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how a release date should be cited with a source. Let's all add this template to every single article that does not have at least one source cited. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 03:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• WP:V. any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. "Noble Justice is Young Noble's debut studio solo album, released in 2002." is not a statement that is likely to be challenged. Obviously the article has no references; we can see that. We don't need a massive boilerplate to tell us that. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• I suppose editors will likely have different perspectives on what information is "challengeable" or "likely to be challenged". With that said, the templates were added (I'm going to presume) in good faith. Those tags can be burdensome to look at, a little obtrusive, but all articles should have reliable sources. Just because something has little to no content is not a reason for exemption. In fact, if there aren't any because of that reason, one might have to question whether there should be an article on it period - an album/song for instance. Merging is always an option. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• I'm truly very, very sorry for any controversy I may have caused, but it is my understanding of Wikipedia:Verifiability that all articles require verifiable sources. As is said on the policy page: "...readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." I interpret this to mean that all articles need references. If I am wrong in assuming this, could somebody please explain the actual policy regarding references to me? Luksuh 05:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Luksuh, if you say that all articles require verifiable sources, how you'll verify the existance, let's say for example, of God? Not every single article in Wikipedia needs references. On a side note, at what point the community had a consensus on this? Is it really necessary to "verify and cite" a release date and track listing? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 06:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No, it's not, and broad WP:ALBUMS discussion has agreed on this. Luksuh, please remove the references tag on articles where there is nothing to cite (ie. it was place correctly in some cases, with reviews etc., and there it should stay) and please be more careful in future when dealing with the award center. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O)Signed retrospectively at 06:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm also willing to remove the tag where there's no content to cite with references. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 06:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
        • That's fine with me... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • how you'll verify the existance, let's say for example, of God? Simple: You won't. That's for Conservapedia, not an encyclopedia. You can, however, verify the existence of the concept of a God by citing verifiable, reliable sources that state "I/we/they/these particular people believe in a magical pixie-man on a cloud who is called God" or words to that effect. I'm not altogether comfortable with the {{ref}} tags being removed. They help establish notability, and give examples of the notable coverage an album has received. I wouldn't imagine WP:ALBUMS would "override" WP:V. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • how you'll verify the existance (sic), let's say for example, of God? See: God#Notes. Luksuh 19:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Not going to the God topic because it's unrelated to this and it was just an example. This tag confuses a lot of users who read Wikipedia. Let's say a user is reading the artile used as example in this discussion (Noble Justice) and spot the tag, what they possible could think about that? "This album was not released in that date" "This artist did not make that album"? This massive tagging is just wrong. I'll be removing the tag like I said above, if somebody have any questions ask here or my talk page. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Emmerdale episodes

This might seem quite trivial, but none the less it's frustrating me somewhat. The template Emmerdale episodes is used as a running tally to record episode numbers. Because of constant inconsistancies in date, I decided to change it to use the FULLDATE template which grabs the day when a date is entered. However, another "editor" (I use editor lightly) is persistant in reverting my change, with his reasoning being that "he prefers it the American style". This has nothing to do with cultural differences, as the show in question for the tally is British, coupled with the fact that his change means the day doesn't show, which has pretty much created an edit-war somewhat.

Ok, so that's pretty much the issue. As I said, I know it's trivial and I couldn't really see it as "vandalism", or at least what is normally described as vandalism, but possibly falling into edits without good reason with disrespect towards my civillity (I have been civil on his talk page). What's the best way to approach this? Cheers. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a standard for TV episode stamping? Whilst Emmerdale doesn't fit into a numbering system per se, it's easier it all TV episodic shows follow the same guidelines. Minkythecat (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural rather than television; per WP:MoS (which is 'pedia wide) British related subjects should use Br-En grammar etc. conventions. Project guidelines should generally follow WP where there are multi-cultural applications (not that I wish to suggest that Emmerdale is "cultural" in anything but the loosest sense of the word!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No idea what the situation with the episode numbering is, so I'll leave that for more informed people to resolve, but the matter regarding the date format can be resolved by recourse to WP:DATE and MOS:SYL. Have reverted to the last edit by Bungle and low-level-warned the other user accordingly. Note that my edit made some other change to the episode numbers - that may need to be looked at by someone else. Orderinchaos 04:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the note about date formats and user-specific preferences. I don't believe there is a "set standard" for formatting with this kind of template, but as mentioned before, there is set standards and preferences for date formatting per geographical location. Orderinchaos, the actual numbering you mentioned is negligable to the problem and easily sorted, but my appreciations go to you for referring some useful and noteworthy policies, hopefully finding some resolution. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just calling attention to this one - The user Wingard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is sterile-reverting edits to this template, including my most recent attempt to resolve the issue. A couple of eyes on this one would be good - thanks. Orderinchaos 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with IP address user- has dynamic IP so editing from constantly changing address

Special:Contributions/86.29.134.157 Special:Contributions/86.29.141.12 Special:Contributions/86.29.133.181 Special:Contributions/82.152.16.153

This user has ONLY made vandalism-related edits, so simply checking the logs for the IP addresses he/she uses will be all that's necessary.

This person has targeted myself, User: Bsrboy and User: Realist2. We all recently contributed to the Ivybridge Community College article and I suspect it is a student from that (my) school. The IP addresses would certainly place it within the region. Bsrboy is also a student at my school but not one in affiliation with me before our recent edits to the same Wikipedia page (we didn't even know each other existed) so my guess is that this is a non-personal assault by a student on anyone editing the page. He has posted photos of naked men on userpages, sworn ("Fuckers") used racial slurs and generally just...needs getting rid of. Realist2 was going to report this himself, but I'm sure if I do then there is no need for further comment from him unless you ask it of him. I don't know quite what is going on but I think it is clear that this is not something I can deal with. Please help if possible, thanks. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Special:Contributions/86.133.6.176

Yet another alias of this same user. Can a dynamic IP be stopped?(The Elfoid (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

• All blocked for a week for harassment. They don't seem to realise that the more they do this, the more evidence there is a for a rangeblock which will cut them dead, but at present, it's not there. But it's close. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be a perminant ban for using racist language (lol if only i was the King of wiki). Realist2 (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My talk page got it again. I'm starting to wonder why anyone would be so dedicated to doing this....I have no enemies. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

86.29.135.72 - forgot to post the latest IP (The Elfoid (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

And, once again, Soccermeko, now at 4.154.5.153

I already rolled back all the edits by the latest sock. Will someone with a mop consider blocking the IP?Kww (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Blueboy96 03:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Back this morning: Back again at User:4.129.68.118.Kww (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoponpop69

This user was recently blocked for personal attacks, disruption, harassment, and abusive sock puppettry see here Then when the block expired, literally minutes afterwards he makes another personal attack. See here Dwrayosrfour (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but the message that was being responded to was sardonic and goading. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That matters why? It was literally minutes after his block expired. He knew he was wrong, he quickly reverted this hoping no one would see it. The statement he was responding to certainly did not justify name-calling. Certainly not, seeing how hoponpop is infamous for this type of behaviour. Think about it, if you were minutes past the expiration of your last block and it was for this type of thing, would you start name-calling right away under any circumstances? This user has been warned no telling how many times, and has been blocked for this a few times as well. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It matters because excluding context leads to poor decisions, and because admin powers should not be used to enable any one user to heckle others, nor to produce a chilling effect when the heckled user fails to react with saintly grace. This is an imperfect situation, yes, but it seems worth trying to salvage, at least at first glance. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken he started the heckling, then called the guy a jerk when he heckled back. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

He undid his edit. But you were in a big rush to report him. I don't blame you, if you think he's a nasty editor, from doing this. But let him off for now as he reverted. If he's as wrong as all that, he'll do something again and get blocked soon enough.special, random, Merkinsmum 11:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Think" he is a nasty editor? The previous personal attacks, amongst other things were not minor. He was calling ppl horrible names i.e. retard, blind, stupid, dumb, self-hating Christian, ignoramus, etc. I too find it odd that under any circumstances it is ok for him to be minutes past his last block and resume name-calling. He obviously did not learn his lesson. I reported this user last time, and I think if nothing else he needs to be further warned about his actions. Hoponpop69 has been warned for this more times than one can count, and blocked a few times as well and this needs to be taken into consideration. I realize the term jerk isn't all that serious, but these are special circumstances. Landon1980 (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

Ku Klux Klan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

God Save the South (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

GordonUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

This needs some uninvolved admin eyes. My involvement is that I declined an {{unblock}} request from User:GordonUS, who had been blocked for 3RR. Today, I removed some racist POV pushing from the article. User:God Save the South, who has uploaded photos that he took at several Klan rallies and thus presumably an inference can be drawn there, added on several occasions today some pro-KKK POV to the aforementioned article. It was removed by several editors including me. I made a 3RR report and the user was blocked by User:Rudget for 48 hours. I would think that would be a non-controversial block. User:Hersfold removed that block without discussing it in any way - before or after - with the blocking admin and imposed instead a 48 hour article ban. He then threatened to block User:Baegis, a valued editor in good standing, for questioning this action. This needs review all around - the unblock needs review and admins are needed to keep an eye on the article to keep it from being whitewashed. --B (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article until these disputes can be sorted out. I removed some KKK associations with the Nazi's yesterday on the basis that they were wholly uncited (edit warring had occurred previously on that topic), and I returned to the article today for another review and found it to be full of uncited original research... and a lot of pro-KKK POV. This crap is kind of getting old, so protected it shall be until the edits can be fully discussed. seicer | talk | contribs 05:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to tell that I was on the unblock IRC chan when the User:God Save the South made his unblock request. Rudget definitely sought input from us before lifting the block. The spirit was that since the user was blocked for not communicating, and was requesting unblock for being able to edit the talk page of the article (the unblock request was clearly implying he wouldn't edit the KKK article during the remaining time of the block), it was a win-win situation considering the amount of edits that were happening on this page (since the block was made to prevent this user from editing the article). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I think you meant I sought input before lifting the block - which I did. Lucas has made a good summary of the reasons for the unblock, which I have further elaborated on here. I would also note that I was not informed of the opening of this thread. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note for any still concerned, hours after the situation seemed to have cooled off, OrangeMarlin has been blocked by Firsfron (link to block log). Happily, the user:God save the whatever, is free to do as he pleases (well, maybe he'll abide by the gentlemen's agreement not to edit the KKK article for the next few hours). That is all, R. Baley (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• This was an extraordinarily ill-considered block, which I have reversed per WP:CDB and just plain common sense. The situation was gradually winding down and a block such as this would only serve to revive the flames. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The situation was certainly not "winding down"; as little as an hour ago OM was still hurling insults at the unblocking admin. However, if a block made less than an hour after the last insult would "fan the flames", it should be reversed. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As for me, I'm trying to decide what was more extraordinarily ill-considered, Hersfold's unblock or Firsfron's block... El_C 06:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued harassment by Sethie

User Sethie has not stopped from disrupting the article [9] I am trying to write in my user-space,[10] . Even though I have made repeated request to him to stay out from disruptively editing the article, he has already voted for deletion of the article in MfD discussion,[11] and does not wish to see an article about the subject on wikipedia, initially i assumed his good faith but his edits are more then disruptive, he is claiming that a supreme court docket is not a notable source and has removed the link form the article.[12], Any attempt that i am making in working on the article he is simply reverting it from my user-space [13],[14] , [15], same page has been tagged for speedy deletion twice by his group on wikipedia [16],[17],and was rejected both times, then again it was tagged for MfD [18], by Renee, but they continued to disruptively edit the article and have not allowed me to work on the article so that I can finish it, get community feedback by filing RfC concerning all wikipedia guidelines and then publish it. I have also brought the matter in notice of ArbComm here. My request is, Sethie, Renee and their other wikipedia group members should not be allowed to disruptively edit the article I am trying to write. Help needed in this regard. --talk-to-me! (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sethie has also removed my comments from MfD discussion stating that my comments about the discussion is blogging [19]. He is not allowing me to write anywhere, be it my user-space or my input to MfD discussion. --talk-to-me! (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the blogging was not removed, but moved to the talk page of the MFD, as clearly noted in the edit summary here.

Also, please note that this user persists in posting libelous information putting Wikipedia at risk for a lawsuit (see this as an example, and this for explanation). Two courts in India have found that allegations of sexual abuse are prima facie libelous and defamatory with absolutely no basis in truth, and despite multiple reversions, this user persists in re-posting such libelous info. Sethie has been reverting the libel because the page it is getting Google hits.

It is my understanding that Wikipedia has zero tolerance for this sort of thing. Thankyou. Renee (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. BTW, this and this were the responses Cult Free World got when he "brought the matter in notice of ArbComm."

this is his user space, where he is mainly starting an article, those allegations mentioned from ex-members were subjects he thought should be discussed in the article, if we assume good faith. He may develop them from a neutral point of view, if not, other less-involved editors can help him, without blanking. For instance, to say "X has been alleged by ex-members, however Y has not been convicted of anything in a court of law." or something. I doubt Cult Free World will accept your input however, as you seem to have an ongoing disagreement. You would be best not to edit his userspace if he has made it clear that he doesn't wish you to do so- simply because it won't help. If you have concerns about anything he's written on a prospective article which he admits is not in a finished state, in his own user space, you can contact admins or others to take a look. But it should be bourne in mind that you may have a conflict of interest about this subject. Have you discussed your concerns about this article with him recently on his own user page? Or have you just blanked or altered parts of his user space, without further in-depth comment? special, random, Merkinsmum 11:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Merkinsmum, I don't know if your note is to me or Sethie. First, I have reviewed the COI policy and can confirm I do not have a COI. This is one of the user's tactics, to say one is a paid member of a group (which is absolutely a lie) and he was blocked for making such personal attacks here. Knowledge about a topic does not equal COI; editing in a biased manner to safeguard some way of life or belief does. This is why this user has a serious conflict of interest -- he runs a blog on this group which makes it difficult for him to edit in any other way than in line with his POV user name.

And yes, most importantly, I and many of the other editors have tried to work with him (in this and his other incarnations (see this, this, this, and this), but all he does is attack, insist his sources are reliable and valid despite others not on the article pointing they aren't (see this, and [this and continue to commit libel. The policy on libel is clear -- it cannot appear in any Wiki space -- user, talk, project, main. I think the issue here is abuse of user space with libel, and Wikipedia has a zero-tolerance policy on that. Anyways, that's some background. Renee (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Renee anyone reading your comments on this discussion here will clearly understand your COI, this has been confirmed by another admin, whom you approached to get me blocked so that the article cannot be published [20] . Your attempt to manipulate users on wikipedia also confirms your COI regarding this topic. This is the only reason as why i had requested you to stay out of development process. You have already tagged the page numerous times for deletion but every time it has been rejected by community. Your comments at this page, when this notice was for Sethie and not you also confirms your COI regarding this subject. This is the sole reason as why i have requested you many times to let me finish the work, so that i can get community feedback. and once again i am requesting you to stay outside the building process, so that i can finish the work soon. Once again kindly let me finish the work do not interrupt as you have done here [21] The MfD discussion itself indicates that you do not want the court cases to come out in public domain, (your first edit was to remove all the court dockets) kindly understand wikipedia works on verifiable truth, do not attempt to hide information i have replied you here also. Now let me finish the work and let me get wikipedia standard confirmed by community and not by you. --talk-to-me! (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

None of what you post above reflects a COI of any sorts and no admin has ever confirmed such a thing; you only assert this, which again is a personal attack, please stop. The only thing the posts above show is a real effort to get us to abide by Wikipedia policies, i.e., WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:R. I have not touched the article save for once since filing the MFD (and this was filed only because you refused to discuss and chose to go down the same attack strategy as you did under your other user names); and, the only thing I did was make the changes suggested by 4d-Don about the correct translation. Please understand, I have no vested interest if court cases come out in the public domain, as you say. What I object to is that they are primary documents, as administrators have noted (e.g., [22]), and that your labeling of them was inaccurate and POV, which is why we need secondary sources that review the documents (otherwise it is OR because it is the selective choosing of testimony to support a POV).

Now, having said all this, I was pleasantly surprised to see your recent post on the talk page where you ask which source is not up to WP standards, so I'll take this there in the hope that we can discuss things intelligently and from a NPOV. Renee (talk)

Let me copy paste the statement made by the admin you approached to get me blocked, link i have already given, but since I have experience that you always try and manipulate user's on wikipedia, as you have attempted here, as such i am forced to demonstrate your contradiction, on this page itself, first your statement:-

• None of what you post above reflects a COI of any sorts and no admin has ever confirmed such a thing.

And now what other admin whom you approached to get me blocked had stated.

• I am starting to realize this matter isn't just about personal attacks anymore but some conflicts of interest on both sides. Just to let you know, I'm going to leave a message on Reneeholle's talk page so she is aware of what I have stated here.

I know you will never accept your COI regarding this subject, but unfortunately you have not been able to maintain the wikipedia standard regarding this subject, this is evident from the fact that you nominated the page for speedy deletion [23] immediately after it was rejected for the same [24]. Even after two successive refusal from community you nominated the page for MfD [25], This by no means indicates your good faith attempt for building the article, but only show's your COI. Kindly allow me to work on this, You cannot prevent anyone from writing an article you don't like, just that the article should be as per wikipedia standard, and it will be confirmed by the community, not by YOU. The process for taking community feedback is by filing for RfC about the article, and not opinion of user's who are directly involved with the subject. My experience with you is, it is close to impossible to work with you given your extremely inflexible view point,[26] and your personal interpretation of court order's.[27]. As such it will be in benefit of article and wikipedia in general if you stay out of this article, as you COI is evident. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Note view of two more user's about Sethie and your disruptive edits [28] and [29]. And also note even after my request to follow neutral admins advice [30], Sethie has added tags to the PRAPOSED article, in my user-space [31], this article is still not over, and any attempt that I am making in writing the article is simply reverted by Sethie. This behavior is astonishing !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cult free world (talk • contribs) 18:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note the MFD was filed on advice from this ANI board here. Thanks. Renee (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another revert by Sethie [32] citing no reason at all. This is pure vandalism, any speedy help will be highly appreciated. --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cult Free World/talk-to-me, if I had to bet I would bet that it's because you continue to post material declared libelous by two courts of law. And, you continue to post previously deleted content with no new secondary sources (which, btw, is the reason for the MFD and the speedily delete tags, see this, not some wish to stop information as you allege). An article is more than welcome under Wikipedia's guidelines which are WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. With only primary sources there is a lot of OR, which is why this content was deleted previously.

The Wikipedia model is consensus, otherwise, this page just becomes a mirror of your and 4d-don's blogs, violating WP:NOT. So, why don't you provide a reliable secondary source and we can build it together from there. I've searched my university website and cannot find any otherwise I would provide the first. Renee (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Renee, your imaginary incarnation will not conceal your COI, noted by more then one admin. It is wikipedia only which has a policy for COI, kindly refer to the link provided above by the neutral observer. --talk-to-me! (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Cabal" policy discussion

Hi. This is a cross-posted courtesy notice to ask for opinions regarding User:Master of Puppets/Cabal policy. This is in response to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Great Cabal Debate and the discussion at WP:Requests for comment/Cabals. Your input would be appreciated to come to a consensus in a reasonably efficient manner. Thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Cabal (TINC) does not wish there to be any policy on cabals. That is all. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone else please look at this editor

A short while ago, I encountered Iambus (talk · contribs), who's only been around for a week or so, making a "joke" edit to Peaches Geldof, which just happens to be on my watchlist. I reverted, left a level-1 warning, and said I would be checking his/her other contributions. Most were okay, some vandalism reverts, some minor improvements in content. The only other one that troubled me was an edit to Wikia to insert a reference to a blog, which I reverted; now Iambus has re-inserted it. Throughout this, we have exchanged messages on my talk page; however, I'm tired and cranky and probably not the best person to try to reason with anyone on why a Wikipedia Review blog is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Could someone else please look into this? Thanks. Risker (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on the editor's talk page about reliable sources and why we need them. If the editor continues to make disruptive edits I think you can give a harsher warning followed by an AIV, based on recent behavior, but it's difficult to see bad faith in this particular situation.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And I learn that using add new section won't edit conflict with someone adding the exact same material. Mine's a tad wordier, so he has his choice of versions. MBisanz ^talk 08:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Specific is good too. :) --Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My he's touchy about it for a new editor who in theory has had nothing to do with WP or WR in the past. I'm thinking a {{Uw-pinfo}} might be needed. MBisanz ^talk 08:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a pretty troubling response from a "new editor" who's "just making mistakes". I think {{Uw-pinfo}} is a good call if he continues to do things like he did to Gator, but he responded on his talk page that he's not going to use those sources again.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found this page on the "what links here" part on the side of this site on User:Iambus. I just read the beginning of the "external harassment" link page, just enough to understand what it is. After that, I stated my opinion of it. I will no longer harass editors, as I did with Gator, after such a troubling thing happened to him. On my user page, I've made a recent edit saying no more fooling around for me.

I also just read the uw-pinfos thing, and it looks very serious. As I said above, I will not harass anyone anymore. --User:Iambus (speak | proposal) 08:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's good to hear, I'm glad you appreciate the seriousness of some of your past actions.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all, after 5 hours of copy editing an article on Indian literature I was pretty sure I was too testy to handle this well. I guess someone can stick one of those nice little "resolved" boxes up there. Just an idea though...those things add quite a bit to the page load time, so their use might benefit from a rethink. Risker (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Having difficulty with User:Helixweb

Order of affairs:

• User:Iamwisesun adds a category
• I revert that change.
• I make another content edit: remove a piping that misrepresents the source. Perfectly ordinary content edits so far.
• Here's where User:Helixweb comes along: and reverts me, calling my edits vandalism when they are clearly anything but.
• I post a note on User talk:Helixweb reminding them of WP:AFG and neutrality. In a terse tone, I admit. But you can read for yourself what I wrote.
• User:Helixweb:
  • removes the note
  • Posts a rude accusation and another
  • reverts my content edit seemingly without even reading it.
• I:
  • revert the change, adding a fact tag
  • fix up some references on the page concerned
  • remove the rude messages since User:Helixweb is clearly not in a mood to discuss.
• User:Helixweb:
  • wholesale reverts, this time clearly without reading my edits.
  • and here's the bit that pissed me off, restores the rude messages which I had removed from my own talk page.

It's not the first time I've run into editors like this on this page (Gedhun Choekyi Nyima) - and I've hardly ever run into anything like this in other pages. I don't know whether this page is jinxed or whether there's a band of "like-minded" editors watching it. In any case, User:Helixweb is clearly not going to let me edit this article, even edits fixing up errors in the footnotes! - and is not even going to let me control my own talk page. Please can someone do something about it. Regards, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Have notified User:Helixweb: [33]. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:Helixweb is now Wikistalking me across my contribution history: [34]

• On Edamame (yes, the soy beans)
• On Olympic Dream for Darfur
• On Two Chinas (reverting edits that have stood for weeks)

This is getting ridiculous. Can someone please do something about it! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've offered informal mediation between these editors and asked User:Helixweb for some clarification on the cited reverts. Maybe if you both take a cool down break this won't have to escalate.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As of this instant User:PalaceGuard008 has agreed to take a cool down period and I have relayed that information to User:Helixweb with the suggestion that he avoids PalaceGuard for a while. I noted that if he believes PalaceGuard to be a vandal there are several other editors on recent changes patrol that can revert disruptive edits. I have not heard back from Helix, but he has not made an edit since I posted to his talk page, so I am assuming he too has taken some time to cool off.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A cooldown is of course a good idea. However, my sense is that Helixweb could also benefit from some mentoring, as he is rather new and gets carried away with the vandal-fighting spirit. Quick on the revert button and tends to escalate confrontation. This is based on my experience as collateral damage of one of his conflicts. He is clearly a well-intentioned user, however. Jpmonroe (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Thamarih Personal Attacks Continued

If this were the first event I'd be on wikiquette alerts, but there are several warnings in-place already. User:Thamarih has engaged in an long-standing series of personal attacks, sockpuppetry accusations, incivil conduct, and ad hominem reasoning in every article he's edited. This diff contains personal attacks of sockpuppetry and personal attacks. I can confirm personally that his accusations of of-campus collusion on article content are unfounded. He has no way of knowing such a thing in the first place, so the accusation is particularly vile. MARussellPESE (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at the specifics of the comment I reviewed Thamarih's contributions and note that they have previously been warned and blocked for making comments regarding yourself. As such I issued an level4 npa warning. If they transgress the npa policy again with particular regard to you, and sectarian commentary generally, I would support a block in excess of a week - and a rapid escalation of tariffs for repeat npa violations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Firefly322

This user is getting much problematic including uninformed WP:POINT prodding of articles and personal attacks against other editors.

• His vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamophilia (third nomination). The article was original synthesis and he voted "strong keep" in the article. [35] While due the problems with the article, I voted "Strong Delete". [36]

In response, he proded the article Corruption in India which I created without informing the primary contributor [37]. NPOV disputes should be solved by editing, not by deletion. This was a WP:POINT prod by this user.

• As for Islamophilia, if administrators read my contribution to the deleted article on Islamophilia and the reference that I used, any scholarly assessement will conclude that my analysis of the material and my contribution were objective. My subsequent vote of Strong Keep were completely in line with the discovery of such material. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Personal attacks against User:Pedro. [38]
  • Both having concerns with adminstator activities and voicing them does shift the focus from topic, making things possibly and unfortunately personal. But such a shift, with reason, does not constitute an attack. Yet writing here "Personal attacks against Perdo" is an unspecified, general claim of a personal attack. To quote policy (WP:NPA): Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Now there is a discussion about the article Jonathan Wheeldon in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wheeldon. WP:ATHLETE says athelets will be notable if "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)". Which is not the case of Jonathan Wheeldon. While hovering AfDs, I voted delete in the article for failing WP:ATHLETE. In response he made this comment [39].

• In Otolemur crassicaudatus and Jwire hovering my activies, they voted in a way that strongly seemed to be making a point. If there was a disruption (and I'm not claiming there neccessarily was), it wasn't in the message (i.e., don't shoot the messanger). Ideally, it would be better if such things didn't happen on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone look into the matter. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also see this pointy vote at an AfD I started, after I deprodded Corruption in India (IP edit, he logged in and fixed the signature in the next edit). Jfire (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• • (IP edit, he logged in and fixed the signature in the next edit) And correcting my log-in error is a problem? How so? Seems like good etiquette, fixing my mistakes. Jfire is pointing out something good. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the editor of both this complaint and the concerns raised here on their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Note there is some commentary on my talk page at User_talk:Pedro#User:Firefly322 that may be relevant. Pedro :  Chat  21:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Stalking

I am tired of user:SWik78 stalking. He has been warned about that on 2 April [40] but he has not stoped. On 16 March I have recieved WP:ARBMAC decision with which my reverts has been limited to 1 time in 48 hours.

• On 18 March user:SWik78 has given me warning about my reverting [41] .It is important to notice that he has never earlier edited that article.
• On 31 March I have made editorial change in article SAO Western Slavonia. My changes has been deleted less of 24 hours latter by user:SWik78 to clearly POV version of article [42] . It is important to notice that this user has never earlier edited this article.
• On 1 April he has warned me about my changes in article Croatia Records [43] after which he has recieved my stalking warning [44] because he has never earlier edited this article
• On 6 April I have deleted parts of article Creation of Yugoslavia [45]. My deleting has started small editorial war between user:PaxEquilibrium (which has sneaked this part of article in February) and user:Hobartimus . Few hours latter user:SWik78 has reverted user:Hobartimus [46]. It is important to notice that user:SWik78 has never earlier edited this article !!

In my thinking because of this stalking evidence user:SWik78 need to recieve small award--Rjecina (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Similar to my situation user:SWik78 is stalking user:GriffinSB ([47] [48] [49] [50] he has never earlier edited this articles) which is clear evidence of his stalking policy--Rjecina (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the evidence above shows him checking your contributions rather than stalking. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If the user is undoing edits made by the above editor at multiple locations where they do not regularly/ordinarily edit in order to be disruptive, then it is clearly a form of harassment. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am wary of any one editor who makes a conscious attempt to review the edits of another contributor who has a revert restriction, and then edit in a manner to which any response will be a violation of that restriction. That the original editor has a editing restriction may be indicative of a past poor record, but such a restriction was not intended as a means by which another editor may attempt to provoke a reaction. Per Wisdom89 I feel that there is likely an intent to harass. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

About my ban or "poor record" I will show administrator words [51] .There is no need to say that I am angry about that. --Rjecina (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If he is NPOV user (or similar to that) I will not have problem with his stalking because I am stalked by more of 5 users from Balkan region but his Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (both article edits has without any question been POV) and warnings are !

I think that his tendentious edit is clear. In article SAO Western Slavonia he has deleted my edits which speaks about Croatian and Serbian warcrimes so that only Serbian warcrimes are deleted [52].

In article Creation of Yugoslavia he has added section Vojvodina. Problem is that users outside ex Yugoslavia and Austro-Hungary do not know that this is nothing else but Serbian name of Banat, Bačka and Baranja so that now article is having 2 section which speak about 1 province my statement is possible to confirm in article Banat, Bačka and Baranja--Rjecina (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Wisdom89 and LessHeard vanU that the evidence shows propable harassment here done by user:SWik78. He should be notified of this thread and given a chance to explain his actions. Hobartimus (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:MacedonianBoy

Personal attack, impoliteness and incivility by User:MacedonianBoy here. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

He is continuing: [53]. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow :| The user being discussed called someone "stupid animal" - rather full on. Orderinchaos 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly ... blocked for 24 hours. Blueboy96 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call, obviously. Note that this outburst was triggered by 3rdAlcove's complaining about what he saw as irridentist political propaganda on MacedonianBoy's user page, a topic that was only today independently brought up on my page too, (here. The issue of just how much Macedonia-related political ranting is acceptable on user pages has come up repeatedly. Comments welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I also directed him to the Serbian-language version of "no personal attacks" - have contacted a Macedonian admin to see if a translation is available in that language. Orderinchaos 17:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So? Does that excuse him, Future? My comment was in response to -his- calling editors 'propagandists', I couldn't care less about what he puts on his user page (which I first noticed about a week ago or so, actually; notice that I didn't complain about it). Add to that his calling me a "subsaharian(sic) asshole" and older comments about "subsaharan Greeks" and "tatar Bulgarians". Since he has contributed a few articles (peppered with some ethnic Macedonian POV-pushing here and there, of course), I propose that no action be taken at the moment against him -if any would be taken, that is-. Next time he should be banned for as long as it takes him to cool down, though.

Edit: I just noticed the 24-hour ban. Ah well, it's not that long, anyway.

Edit 2: Sorry if I misinterpreted you btw, FPaS. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't criticizing you and I wasn't excusing him. Just wanted to see if there's some more opinions about that wider issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"I am ready to sacrifice my self for the truth and the facts. I do not care about your opinion at all." [54] - nice consensus-building style there :/ I am done there - I think the 24 hour block is appropriate and if future problems arise they can be dealt with in future. Orderinchaos 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

New section, since my previous report of Soccermeko's daily resurrection went unnoticed

He's back at 4.154.56.1. I've requested semi-protection of all of his targets, but the response time at WP:RFPP is taking forever (and all my semi-requests were ignored yesterday). Please block. Someone please do the semiprotections.Kww (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked both IPs he used today ... note to other admins, this guy is using computers on Level 3's network. This is a major backbone Internet provider, so I'd advise softblocking any IPs in this range if he pops up on them again. Blueboy96 16:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

sockpupeteer makes a sock after unblock

I have just been told that the sockpupeeteer accused on this case Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pinoybandwagon has created a sock called Radiospeed barely 18 hours after being unblocked, and has used it to edit the same articles he was told not to edit, and has violated naming policies like he was told not to do. See the sock contributions, and obvious similarity with user page of other socks.

I request inmediate indef block of User:Radiospeed for obvious sock, and inmediate reblock of User:Pinoybandwagon for using sockpuppetry and breaking again naming policies again, and lying to get unblocked. No warning, since this user has received lots of requests and harsh warnings to stop this behaviour, and has broken his promise when requesting unblock of "I will never make usernames under me". --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... looking at his edits, this guy clearly isn't a new user. First edit was to create a userpage with userboxes, and then he redirects a page. Probably gonna file a checkuser. Blueboy96 17:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's very similar to one of the sock pages User:Coolmacmac and User:Radiosmasher (the last one was changed by an IP that appears to be the user some 5 minutes before Radiospeed was created, and I restored it, and to the ones from socks on a related User:Coolmac and User:False_man --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)P.D.: This user appears to be engaged on a smear campaign against GMA in favor of Pinoy TV. He added a link to a website smearing GMA [55], and he apparently used a IP sock for similar things, as seen on his answer to and editor that reverted his edits [56], he signs as "ray, a concerned GMA PINOY TV subscriber.". Notice that he proclaims to say the truth just like the sockpupeteer. Notice how User:Pinoybandwagon claims to be "incumbent Chairman of Pinoy Banwagon", and the IP talks about Pinoy TV. I'm sure that I have seen some other reference to a company called Pinoy on one of the socks, but I don't remember when. I am not sure of how this relates to all his screwing up all the naming organization of philippine radio stations.

Another sock User:Bad_false has a userbox saying "This user watches GMA Network programs and is "proud to be a Kapuso."." --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Userpage is quite similar to that of a confirmed Pinoybandwagon sock, Radiosmasher (talk · contribs). That clinches it ... case filed. Only reason I didn't block them both myself was because of the outside chance they're different users. Blueboy96 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Since it was me who assumed his good faith and unblocked him, I believe it is my duty to correct this mistake. Both sock and its master are indef-blocked. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:CarlosRodriguez

This user continues to make horribly POV edits to Jeremiah Wright after being warned numerous times about his actions. He was reported to AIV previously, but the admin declined because he wasn't really vandalising. But the admin did say to come here if the disruptive behavior continued - it did. Here is the warnings I gave to him on his talk page, with diffs as well:

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Grsz11 04:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

yet more bullying with no specifics from a passionate edit warrior

[57], [58], [59]. You know quite well what I'm talking about. Grsz11 04:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have commented the WP:AIV report, declining to block now on the grounds that it is - even though obvious policy nonconform - not persitent vandalism or spamming. However, if this behaviour continues, I will block you. Poeloq (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe we can work towards a consensus on the talk page to include some of your material . Please join us there to discuss your proposed changes.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

More violations: [60], [61], [62], [63].

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Grsz11 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You can check the page history for additional disruptive behavior. He refuses to acknowledge the significance of NPOV, consensus and original research, and takes it out through edit warring. Thanks, Grsz11 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit warring behavior looks troubling to me and that history page has been consumed with reverts as a result of it.--Jersey Devil (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried about 3RR myself. Luckily, there's several other users there, and we've been pretty evenly undoing. Grsz11 18:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually concerned about the way the warnings read, and if they may have contributed to the problem rather than having helped. I think that working in tandem with others to avoid a 3RR block is gaming the system.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, when everybody else realizes what he's doing is wrong. It isn't working "with others to avoid a 3RR block," it's keep the article safe from a user who wants to push his POV all over the place. Grsz11 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

CarlosRodriguez has a history of disruptive editing, as his own talk page attests and the talk pages on other articles, such as Blackface, confirm. Adding Black Hitler and other stuff CarlosRodriguez has attempted to the Jeremiah Wright article really is inappropriate. TheslB (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. A quick history check of your own talk pages will reveal that you have both also been administratively warned for your edit warring on that page, and one of you has recently brought two unfounded complaints to this board in the recent past.Carlos is out of line, but some black pots are here too. Enough blame to go around for the three of you on that page--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop wasting space. This isn't about your ridiculous accusations against other users. Grsz11 19:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note, the warnings came about as a result of undoing this guys edits. Grsz11 19:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No sir, from also undoing mine without talk page consensus and generally running roughshod over WP policies and your undoing ever editor with whom you disagree no matter what page you find yourself on. You are right about Carlos, but your tag team hit jobs on editors are noteworthy on any complaint that you make.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"You are right about Carlos" — then please do not make this about me and you. TheslB (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sad that it came to this, Grsz11. Grsz11 has broken 3RR with 5-6 reverts per day. A quick look at the history page will show this: [64] CarlosRodriguez (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If they looked they can see you greatly exaggerate. Over the past 24 hours, I've undid you twice, and Fovean twice. ThesIB has also had to undo your edits. There's a difference between edit warring out content, and reverting vandalism, which is essentially what your edits have become. Grsz11 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please link to one vandalistic edit that I have made on my talk page to sustantiate you claim. The warnings that you blank on your page attest to who the real vandal is.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about Carlos. PLEASE stop wasting everybodies space and time with your rants against me. Grsz11 20:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Grsz, you have broken 3rr shamelessly and reverted most everyone's edits that don't adhere to your POV. I didn't want it to become an administrative matter, but now you've brought it here CarlosRodriguez (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, you've been warned several times about your POV edits by myself, and others. The diffs above clearly show that you are trying to push your opinion across on the article as fact. There's a difference between my reverting edits that I don't like, and reverting edits that have been discussed and warned against. Grsz11 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• And you do do both.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

All three of you, stop it now. AN/I is not the place for arguing. Wait patiently for an admin to have time to review the situation and decide if any action is necessary (unfortunately, I don't have time right now). If you really want to argue with each other, do so on your talk pages, but any incivility from any of you and you'll be blocked, regardless of the merit of your arguments. Consider this an official warning. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tango. For the reviewing admin: please note a totally uninvolved editor reverted CarlosRodriguez' similar edits yesterday and reported them as vandalism here. This led to an ANI admin warning CarlosRodriguez that if the behavior continued, a block would be forthcoming. TheslB (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not being "Dense", but to which three editors do you refer, as four had weighed in in addition to a SYSOP?--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see Tango's statement above. I am not going to get into an argument with you here. TheslB (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I most respectfully deny that I asked you to. If you have anything resembling an argument, please post to your talk page which i have now added to my watchlist and I will respond there.Cordially,--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring by blocked User:Fredrick day

User:Fredrick day is blocked for vandalism and severe incivility. Coming in through identifiable IP, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day and Talk for that SSP page, he is edit warring with removal of his edits. See Special:Contributions/87.113.2.240.

He is attempting to call attention to my behavior through this, but what I've been doing with another blocked user would likewise be legitimate with him. Another user is blocked for various reasons, but has a history of good contributions. He is being reverted practically automatically when his IP edits are found, which is legitimate. Then, any other user who sees these edits and who wishes to take responsibility for them, may bring them back in. This is not meat puppetry, it is reviewing the edit history of a page and deciding to bring back in removed material based on the content, not on the identity of the editor.

I have reverted Fd's edits, without regard for content (as is being done in the case he refers to.) Any legitimate editor may see these edits and bring them back in, I have utterly no objection to that. I happen to see Fd's edits because he edits pages I watch; then I check his contributions and am reverting on sight. Sometimes I note this in Talk to specifically call attention to the edit so that other editors may review it.--Abd (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• I hope someone blocks his IP soon. How strange that someone who appeared to be a legitimate contributor degenerated so quickly into vandalism and trolling. It seems like what you're doing is perfectly OK. I am reviewing his contribs now to see if anything should be kept. -- Naerii 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• He's back Special:Contributions/87.113.42.143. -- Naerii 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I rolled back all but one edit from the first IP that wasn't rolled back already--the only one I didn't touch was when he reverted an obvious BLP violation. In my view, about the ONLY circumstances under which block-evading socks can't have their edits reverted on sight is when there are obvious BLP or copyright violations. Can we consider him banned and be done with it? Blueboy96 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I see no reason why their edits shouldn't be reverted on sight, but then again there's no point keeping incorrect content so there's nothing wrong with going through later and restoring any edits that are worth keeping. I seem to recall this being done in past cases? If it's against policy never mind I guess. I just feel a bit icky about restoring incorrect information and leaving it indefinitely until someone unrelated notices. -- Naerii 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine--as long as the edits aren't in any way associated with a block-evading or banned user, you can restore them manually. Blueboy96 18:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for blocking. -- Naerii 18:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks. What I'm doing is a solution to a problem that arose when User:Larry E. Jordan was blocked, but was also known for some very good contributions -- not perfect, but good seeds for articles -- in parliamentary procedure. He continued to try to make good contributions, but they were being reverted due to block evasion. Which is, of course, legitimate. After discussing this with the administrator doing most of the reversions, I came up with a solution, announced my intention to do it, waited, then started doing it. I looked for these reverted edits, reviewed them, and if they seemed solid -- I checked sources where possible, or flagged the edit if it seemed good but couldn't be immediately verified -- I brought them back in. I also listed what I was doing on the project page involved, and invited other editors to do the same, and one did, cleaning up everything I'd found. Fredrick day may be making some good contributions. So any other editor may review those edits and bring them back, if the editor is willing to take responsibility for them. I'd be careful though. This guy is positively venomous. But I'm not going to get into that. Any legitimate editor brings back his edits, I'm no longer involved in that content. (Unless it is blatant sock puppetry, another story.)

By the way, I'm pretty sure he planted that BLP violation removal, attempting to trap me with it. "See! He's removing necessary edits!"--Abd (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) As I have time, I'm listing the IPs involved on Talk for his SSP page. Note that his IP editing predated his block, he was "good hand" Fredrick day, though I didn't think him so good, and very, very "bad hand" Section 31. He was nailed when he forgot he was logged in once, and linked Section 31 with his registered account, though KMweber had already pretty much pinned him.--Abd (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

He's back again, and leaving irritating posts [65]. Someone please block Special:Contributions/87.115.12.23, though he'll be back on another IP shortly I expect. -- Naerii 19:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Funkynusayri edit warring... again

The article Egyptians could use some eyes. User:Funkynusayri was edit warring with a new user on its talk page yet again despite getting a recent warning for an edit war on another article, and several past blocks for similar behavior. The last edit war seems to have been a spill over from a dispute on the article Arab because some editors with the help of a self-admitted sockpuppet of a previously banned user were trying to include contested images of people. This is despite an over-flooded talk page with months of disputing over the same issue, which seemed to have been resolved when the article had a more neutral image. By the way, the sockpuppet's identity is revealed on the picture he created in case anyone is wondering; not something he is trying to hide (and is violating his most recent evasion block again [66]). I also just realized that Funkynusayri is fresh off a 7RR violation for which he only received a warning (not sure why given past disruptive history).

He is now notifying of me of an "arbitration" request he filed. Don't know how to begin with that. Not only have I not had the misfortunate of interacting with him for months, the is supposed to be about a "content dispute", but I use the term very loosely because he's never actually addressed the contents of the article once in his round of tendentious/trollish comments on the the article's talk page. His "argument" basically consists of the premise that the article shouldn't exist (i.e., "I don't like it") because it more or less offends his Arab-nationalist sensibilities. I stopped responding to this nonsense long ago after seeing the same tendentious comments on the article's talk page posted over and over again. Two of his cohorts already failed to get the article deleted. I don't even know if I should respond to the arbitration request, but I'm gong to at least post a link to this report. — Zerida ☥ 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone wants to "smash my face"

Now I know people often treat each other like dirt on Wikipedia, but this one's gone too far. I've had the beginning of a revert war — something I don't much like, and usually wind up abandoning (I mean who cares what silliness people want to do?) with some shifting anonymous, over something pretty minor, and in fact in this case it's actually reasonable on both sides, or should be; and I may have started the ball rolling by saying that their edits might be vandalism. I was maybe not as civil as it could have been, but no harsh words, ad hominem remarks or calling people liars or anything of that kind.

But apparently this anonymous user wants to "smash my face"; topping off a barrage of excessively violent reaction.

Now I intensely dislike hostility, so I'm outta here for a few weeks; but someone should keep an eye on this person, probably.

I used to be a hard-working editor at Wikipedia, as can be seen from my edit history (I'm also on Wikipedia's white list) but I've got less and less involved: and this is one of the reasons why. Bill (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered reporting it per WP:TOV. Bstone (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I blocked for 24, there's no excuse for that. RxS (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is WP:TOV beneficial/usable while it's still being constructed? User was right to bring it here though. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this was the place to bring this up, with or without WP:TOV. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV says to report it here but also gives you ideas and information as how to go about dealing with the threat, including contacting the police. Bstone (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with constant attempts to get others blocked?

How do everyone suggest dealing with attempts to get other people blocked, including massive incivility? See this and onward on my talk page. There seems to be a mess of arguments between User:Squash Racket, User:Nmate, and User:Hobartimus on one side versus User:Tankred, User:MarkBA, and User:Svetovid on the other. Some also seem to be using the warning templates aggressively probably in a harassing fashion. Now, I've blocked Svetovid earlier for continuous arguing and incivility from Hedvig Malina. Otherwise, I've told everyone to use the warning templates and WP:AIV. Any suggestions beyond removing all the comments my talk page and telling everyone to deal with it themselves? Block people for harassing other users? I've had some edit disputes, I guess, with a few so could an outside admin look at this? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious if anything should be done about the user who started this nonsense saying that he's complaining about me "as suggested" and "Let's see if we can't get him and his kind kicked out of here." Some meatpuppetry going on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry no-one else has responded. As far as you are aware, are these editors only edit-warring on the Hedvig Malina article or is that part of a group of articles? I'm inclined to protect the article page for a day and give a stern conduct warning on the talkpage. Will there be many other editors caught by a article protection, from your experience? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit-warring at Malina seems to have calmed down, so I don't protection would be that necessary. Another article was been Bratislava Castle which again has calmed down. This seems like part of a larger nationalist argument that I cannot piece together. I'm just wondering if it's worth doing anything beyond wiping my talk page clean and ignoring everyone. How many times is it appropriate for admin to tell others than I am not interested in being their cop before *I* can just block them for bothering the hell out of me? Just need an outside opinion as to how to respond. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not posted anything on Ricky's talk page in the last couple of days and already apologized for the earlier comments there answering another editor's accusations (and suggested deleting the whole part or using a hide/show template).
Some users post reports there that belong on a noticeboard and if it goes unanswered, the administrator will probably think it's completely valid. If I cut and paste those reports to where these belong, I would edit others' comments which is not allowed.
Still I decided to pass on yesterday's new report there though I could have added a few things. Since Ricky asked me recently to use WP:AIV I stay away from his talk page.
What to do when another editor who received the same message reports others directly to Ricky instead of a noticeboard? Squash Racket (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If the edit war has calmed down, I concur that you should wipe (or archive, just in case) the material and replace it with a notice that you do not wish to involve yourself with the matter (with a suggestion of taking it to WP:AIV). Like everyone here, you are a volunteer and you decide how you are going to help the encyclopedia. If you do get the sharp end of a few comments, and you are unable to ignore them, post a level4 warning and take it to AIV if repeated. I hope editing becomes more fun for you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Angrymansr

This user continues to attack and harass me. His behavior isn't limited to just my talk page, or his. His edit summaries as well have been abusive and rude. He's even gone as far as changing my comments (that are on his talk page) to make me look stupid. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest going to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts first. You'll probably get a quicker response there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What qualifies as editing by proxy?

Resolved

 – Thanks for the replies, and the attention to the article. --Onorem♠Dil 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the banned user is supposed to be, but an IP editor who is supposedly banned is being reverted for removing material from the Seal (musician) article citing WP:BLP. While I think that their removal is probably more extensive than it needs to be, there does appear to clearly be material that should be sourced if it's going to remain. I'm on my way out for a bit, and I don't have the time to go through and just remove certain parts...but I'd prefer not to just revert back to a banned users version. Does anyone have time to give a couple minutes attention to this article? --Onorem♠Dil 20:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• OTRS volunteers edit by proxy all the time, the key in my view is that (a) the editor identifies and is prepared to stand by the material on their own and (b) the edits should not be furthering the disruptive activity that got whoever it was banned. So, for example, when JB196 was banned for dicking about with wrestling articles, people who dicked about with wrestling articles aided and abetted by JB196 ended up in deep trouble. On the other hand, ColScott is banned from editing, but if he were to email OTRS or an editor he trusts with a necessary fix per WP:BLP then there would be no problem. That's how I interpret it, anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear. Consider an edit by a blocked user as a suggestion from someone. Could be anyone, except that if the user is blocked, you might be extra careful. You can implement that suggestion. Since the edit is in history, it might be pretty simple. But, remember, you are responsible for that edit if you bring it back. Whether or not you do bring it back, you can comment on it in Talk, should you need help. Let a regular editor of the article make the decision.--Abd (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'd say. If you personally think the edit is a good idea, then make the edit. The fact that someone else suggested it doesn't really matter. Proxy editing is usually a problem away from the article space - in the article space, edits stand on their own merits. Elsewhere, who makes them can be significant. --Tango (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:Meatpuppet. If someone has been recruited to open an account only for the purpose of helping someone evade a black/ban, the new account and the blocked account are treated as one and the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the answers here mostly echoed my interpretation. Thanks for the replies. --Onorem♠Dil 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Need an admintrator's intervention

The User talk:Udonknome has been deleting content from the article Eros Ramazzotti[67]. He/she first claimed on my talk page that he's the one who has created the article [68],therefore, he feels as though he's endowed by the right to delete anything he/she wants from the page. The user replaced the original discography section with something that not only does not serve the purpose the former did but also it is now located in the middle of the article which I cannot revert or correct because an admin. has protected the page due to ongoing disputes between I and the other user.--Harout72 (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's a vandal just for disagreeing with you, and we don't normally use template warnings for regular users, only for newbies. What you two have is a content dispute; there are good suggestions at WP:DISPUTE for strategies to come to consensus. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying he's a vandal for disagreeing with me, however, he should be treated like one for removing whole chunk of informative content from pages without discussing them as well as making the pages look as he has done to Eros Ramazzotti with the discography section in the middle of the article as well as replacing the word Forward with Foward, that's not having a difference of an opinion but it's rather destroying the page. --Harout72 (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We only use template warnings for newbies? *cough* You dont think that smacks of elitism and poor reasoning? If you think the templates are bite-y and harsh, they're that way for everyone and no one should get the things. And if new users somehow deserve less consideration, thats just flat out incompatible with our communal norms. Everyone deserves a unique warning if you think they've gone out of line, we aren't less courteous to new users. -M^ask? 01:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read through Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars - the reasoning behind it is that template messages are designed to educate users about the relevant policy or guideline, which we can generally assume the experienced editor would already be aware of. That's not to say experienced editors are above being warned: rather, they should be warned with a more personal message that encourages further discussion. Such would also work for newbies as well, it goes both ways; it's just that for them, it's best to give them the link, have them read it, then discuss any questions they may have. It doesn't do much good to discuss things when one party doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Read that page many moons ago :) It's the other way around from what you've said, i've found. The big scary icons and lack of good faith on the templates is much more damaging to newcomers then regulars. A link to a policy and washing your hands of it is likely the wrong approach to take with someone unaware of the labyrinthine network of policy, and the 'ZOMG STOP!' visual nature is likely to chase off what would be productive editors were it not for the bite-y aspects. The wording on most of these templates was extremely soft originally, going by memory on when they become prominent a few years ago, but has gotten harsh enough now that a hand written message is superior in, well, almost all cases. -M^ask?

Not disputing that at all - several of the warning templates, the lower-level ones mainly, definitely need some work done. But then that's a discussion for another place and time. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent, serious personal attacks by User:PetraSchelm

PetraSchelm (talk · contribs) has explicitly or implicitly accused other Wikipedians of paedophilia repeatedly. For example:

• "It looks like the people who were most vocal in getting the articles renamed "sexual attraction to children" from "sexual abuse and pedophilia" were self-identified pro-pedophile. One of them states on his userpage that his "agenda" is pederasty articles, and has claimed that 13 year old boys can consent to sex. Another, Tony Sandel, clearly identifies himself as pro-pedophile on his userpage. I don't get the impression that that they think pedophile is an insult; on the contrary that is how they identify themselves."[69] These statements are false. The userpages in question are User:Tony Sandel and User:Haiduc, and both have made clear elsewhere that they are neither paedophiles nor pro-paedophile.
• "I think you should actually read the lists which were named "Pedophila and Child Sexual Abuse in film/theatre/song/books, and have all been renamed by a small pedophile faction "sexual attraction to children in film/theatre/song/books"[70])
• "The argument for changing the name seems to be that "sexual attraction" subsumes "pedophilia and child sexual abuse." Uh, only from the perspective of pedophiles."[71])
• Etc.[72][73] [74]

The issue she is so incensed over is that several lists are named in the format of "x that portrays sexual attraction to children or adolescents," rather than "x that portrays child sexual abuse." As has been discussed on the talk pages of these articles, which Petra has neglected to use, this is so because many of the books, films, or songs do not include child sexual abuse -- the paedophile in Death in Venice, for instance, never acts on his attractions. This is clearly not pro-paedophile reasoning (though personally, I still disagree with it); Petra's attacks are unjustified.

She has continued after being reminded of our civilty policies.[75][76][77] --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's evident from Petra's contributions that she is either a sockpuppet or at the very least a single purpose account. Within just a few days of registering she's found some of our most esoteric policies, managed to nominate several articles in one of the most contentious regions of Wikipedia for deletion, and especially, articles that themselves are the result of a remarkable consensus effort between editors on both sides of the pedophilia equation; while at the same time managing to brand other editors as pedophiles or pro pedophiles, or even tolerant of child abuse. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I have left a strongly - and hopefully comprehensive - warning at her(?) talkpage below your notice of this section. While not specifically noted, it should be regarded as a final warning should the editor continue making these comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair enough, and I have also tried to explain to her why this is so and hopefully this will be the last we hear of it. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you explained to her that calling people pedophiles on flimsy grounds was generally frowned upon, but that it is acceptable to accuse them of promoting a pro-pedophile viewpoint [78]. That's very helpful of you, and certainly contributes to the atmosphere of camaraderie and peaceful discourse that surrounds those articles. May I remind you, though, that people have been blocked for exactly that (purportedly promoting a pro-pedophile viewpoint, that is), and that it might be polite to refrain from such deleterious claims as well? "Thanks," Bikasuishin (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought SqueakBox did tell her that. Regardless, if it wasn't him, it was someone else because I definitely remember someone having mentioned that. And even so, Less Heard vanU referenced it in their final warning. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean in the same way one would accuse another editor of editing in a pro-cannabis way or a pro-US army way, concentrating on the content and slant of the edits but not saying the uiser is stoned or whatever, we all have our POVs but we must not edit wikipedia to promote any POV. Indeed all I have been trying to do is get this particularly online (ie working with us constructively|) and unfortunately I seem to have failed. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced that you mean well. However, people usually don't get blocked for editing with a pro-US military viewpoint, unless, I guess, when it gets particularly egregious and disruptive. A pro-pedophile bias or any semblance thereof, on the other hand, is something that gets editors indefinitely blocked, so it might be best to exercise proper circumspection before branding a fellow editor with such a label. I'm not sure a remark like "this editor promotes a pro-pedophile viewpoint" really qualifies as "commenting on the contributions rather than the contibutor", even if it is meant that way. Anyway, sorry for this slightly off-topic comment. Bikasuishin (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, she's responded by affirming her claim that Haiduc is pro-paedophile.[79] For the record, the statement she interprets as supporting this is: "Agenda: To promote accurate and comprehensive treatment of LGBT history, in particular of pederastic homosexuality, in its sexualized as well as chaste manifestations." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This user has been consistently disruptive and unresponsive to discussion or reasoning. I too am of the opinion that he is a sock, and while I could not care less about the personal attacks the fact remains that his constant attempts to introduce a political agenda are inappropriate. As long as this kind of behavior persists unchecked it is corrosive both to the work that we are doing here and to the atmosphere of collegiality and reason that needs to be cultivated. Haiduc (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for personal attacks re this edit. See AnotherSolipsist's reference above. I've also warned that since this is a very serious accusation, next block will be significantly longer. Given the suspiciousness of the account, that should not be unreasonable. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Her block log is empty.[80] ? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Likely a bug, she is clearly blocked, see [81]. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is well that this user is blocked, but what happens to his disruptive votes in the many AfDs he has been involved in? Haiduc (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think unless it can be proven she is a sock of a banned user then they should stand as they were made before bing blocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, this is a block, with no allegations of being a banned user, the votes stand. Regardless, even if they were to be removed they'd make no difference in the outcome. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My Own Edits

Resolved

Hello! I would like to remove the title of "vandal" for this IP: 67.171.175.42 Unfortunately, I was logged off when editing my own page (I'm not sure how), and someone else reverted it and gave the IP a warning. I'm sorry for the trouble - I just wish to take any "black marks" off of my IP. Sorry about the trouble, I'm removing the warning. Thank you! BlackPearl14^{Bella Swan} 00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Rad. Do what thou wilt with your talk page. the_undertow ^talk 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting on WP:COI

Over the last few days, editors have been discussing the "tension" between WP:COI and the principle that editors should be allowed to edit pseudonymously. One site of discussion has been on WP:COI, in relation to text stating that "Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." As was pointed out, this seems to contradict text in the same paragraph recommending that editors approach COIs directly, as well as the general practice on WP:COIN where identity is somewhat regularly discussed as necessary. Discussion of this went on for a couple of days between Crum375 and myself, with some others coming in and generally agreeing that there is a tension here which needs to be acknowledged in one form or another. Crum375 has argued in contrast that there is no tension and that discussion of COI should never involve identifying an editor who does not identify themself. Crum insisted in turn that because WP:Block states that editors may be blocked for revealing identifying information, WP:COI must state that identifying a pseudonymous editor is in all cases against basic policy. Of those discussing on the page, Joshuaz and I directly disagreed with this, while Privatemusings sought a compromise. When it became clear that views on the page were not being further developed, and that editors generally agreed that the change was necessary, I attempted to reinstate the original edit.[85] Crum reverted,[86] but Joshuaz replaced it noting agreement on the talk page.[87]

My concern is that, following this, both SlimVirgin and Jayjg arrived in the next hour to revert back to the original version. SlimVirgin had left a comment earlier but had not stayed around. Jayjg had not commented at all. Elonka then arrived and protected the page for 48 hours. The issue, of course, is that it seems inappropriate to me for two admins to arrive on a policy page and revert in this fashion without attempting to participate in talk. The general pattern of these editors working together, recently discussed on this page here, also seems relevant. I raise it here for discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan, you are forgetting that lots of editors have the policy and guideline pages on their watchlists. In addition, SV had commented several times on WT:COI prior to her recent edits. The issue is very simple: outing is prohibited. That COI allegations somehow trump the blocking policy which prohibits outing, is not anchored in any policy or guideline. There is a wide consensus on WP that outing is unacceptable, and it conforms to the existing policies and guidelines. I don't think in any case that ANI is the place to discuss policies, but your assumption that people must be actively engaged in talk page discussion prior to preventing edits that they see as contradictory to long standing policy is simply wrong. Crum375 (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I raised the policy issue here only so far as is necessary for background. In my view, if editors have a history of working very closely together across unrelated pages, they should take particular care not to show up and revert for each other without any comment on the talk page. I think this is particularly the case if the discussion has been quite involved as it's been here. Mackan79 (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence of any such "consensus" that "outing is prohibited" as alleged by Crum375. One relatively small group of users (SlimVirgin, Crum375, JzG, and a couple of others) favor this position. Another relatively small group of users (Dan T. and Cla68 come to mind here) object to that interpretation of policy. The vast majority of Wikipedians don't really give a damn. That is pretty much the definition of no consensus. *** Crotalus *** 02:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Mackan79 that it's a bad idea for an editor to just show up and revert, without participating at talk. When I saw that the page was getting yanked back and forth, I took a look at the talkpage, could not see a clear consensus either way, and opted to simply protect the page. I am offering no opinion on which version of wording is better, but edit-warring about it is not the way to go. --Elonka 05:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Crotalus, there is certainly also an issue with Crum375's tendency to frame issues in ways that seem to justify any amount of reverting. This happened recently in an arbcom case, where Crum was blocked after first reverting the evidence page 8 times against multiple editors and admins entirely by themself,[88] without ever stopping to discuss the issue (and causing a minor uproar), and then returning after the page was unprotected to do this again.[89] Crum was blocked for this by the ArbCom clerk, despite the lone claim that it was a BLP issue. Here, Crum managed to claim that removing the disputed statement about "basic policy" was itself a violation of policy and therefore also beyond community consensus, justifying Crum in reverting twice against two editors and then a third time after SV and Jayjg arrived. I don't know how JoshuaZ feels about the issue, but all of this was after he noted that Crum was becoming tendentious,[90] and I noted that believing you alone are right does not justify continual reverting.[91] It seems to me someone might clarify to Crum375 that this approach isn't generally considered productive. Mackan79 (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking an absolute stance either way at this time. There are times when one may draw a reasonable inference that an editor is conencted with a subject, and that does not necessarily violate their privacy, but we should be absolutely firm that publishing anything that is not trivially available from a user's own comments is at the very least extremely problematic. Outing pseudonymous individuals as a way of gaining an advantage in a content dispute, or in revenge for your POV failing to achieve consensus, is unlikely to have any good result. I don't think we need new policy to cover this, I think judicious application of Clue should be sufficient. Inferring a connection between User:BigJim and his article Big Jim's Steak House would hardly qualify as "outing". The most obvious example I can see here is user:THF, who asserted that if he had not revealed his RWI, no COI allegation would have been made. I dispute that, as his edits were often tendentious. I also have a problem with anybody who is more active in improving Wikipedia Review than improving Wikipedia making any kind of comment about outing, especially when said person seems to dispute the existence of harassment of editors. If he'd like to answer my 3am hang-up calls from a certain banned user, he's more than welcome. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about Dan Tobias; he has already answered your accusations that he supposedly disputes the existence of harassment. --Random832 (contribs) 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, this is similar to what people were saying on the page. If your last comment is directed at me, however, I can't be sure how much of the page you read. I think harassment is a serious concern here, specifically the serious concern, which isn't furthered by saying we can't discuss obvious conflicts, even as we do. I think other problems are also caused by that approach. But that's the policy issue, which isn't what I intended to raise. We could tie it to even bigger issues of who is on the right side of what; I think it's fair, however, simply to raise whether editors who almost constantly work together should show up and revert for each other in this way. It's a difficult issue, yes, but I don't think one that benefits from tag team revert warring. Mackan79 (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Archiving?

On User talk:Kei-clone, editor Kei-clone has stored a copy of MyAnimeList, an article fairly deleted through AfD on April 2nd for failing WP:WEB (by his own statement, it has now been deleted three times though only once through AfD). He first put this article on his talk page back in January, then removed it on March 17th when he recreated the page. The page was nominated for AfD on March 25th, at which point he archived the page to his user talk page again[92]. The page was deleted, along with a related page. I left Kei a note suggesting he now remove the article, per WP:USER or move to a subpage if he intends to work on the article to try to meet notability (which was never able to be established during the entire AfD). He said he can leave it on his main talk page if he wants to because it doesn't violate WP:USER. Additionally, User:CanadaAotS has also archived the same article, on her user page, and has had that archive up since January.

I feel both of these archives our violating WP:USER, as neither is showing any sign that they are doing anything but just simply trying to keep a copy of the article on Wikipedia. Both archivings make their user pages appear to be an article rather than a user page. I'm asking for an admin to address this as I'm uncertain on the rules concerning this since these are main user pages instead of user subpages, and Kei's reaction makes me suspect both editors will ignore anything said by a "regular" editor, particularly the one who AfDed the original articles. Collectonian (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is in usersapce, it will not come up on a wikipedia search. The question is whether it sets out to be misleading. On User talk:Kei-clone, given there is a welcome template above it and talk messages below it I'd be inclined to answer this as 'no', though one might reconsider if done up exactly to look like an article page. The second user also has a proviso above it, so in this case (at this stage) I wouldn't do anything about it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I am going to respectfully disagree with Casliber. I am concerned that what appears to be a full article is being "sheltered" on a talkpage, especially since the information was recently deleted at AfD.[93] If the information is not being worked on, then the article should be blanked off the talkpage, and a diff can be included which links to the information in history. User talkpages should be used for communication between editors about Wikipedia content, not as archive space. If the draft is being actively worked on, then it should be moved to a subpage, though if after a reasonable period of time it appears that the subpage is just being used as a free archive to dodge the AfD, then the subpage can be nominated for deletion via Prod or Miscellany for deletion. --Elonka 07:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#WEBHOST is relevant, here. The "article copies are okay in userspace if you're working on them" rationale seems to fall flat once the community's decided to content should be deleted. Maybe give it a little time, see if they're working on a deletion review request or something else productive and reasonable, but if it's just sitting there and they're not doing anything else, it seems we're being used as a webhost of sorts. Should the information really be needed, it'll still be available in history. GFDL compliance may be a concern, here, I haven't looked. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

once the community has decided a page should be deleted, it is especially appropriate for it to be in user space if for the purpose of improvement. Not that I think that this was being done here. And we may need a statement that such uses should be on a subpage. DGG (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is in usersapce, it will not come up on a wikipedia search Er, no, it does: this is the result when I put the name in the "search" box. If you meant Google...well, User pages show up there, too, which I suspect is the entire point.

If the editor doesn't want to work on it, he can keep it on his own hard drive until he's ready. --Calton | Talk 14:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Scott A. Brown: W.T.F.? Suicide threat or hoax?

Resolved

See [94] Edison (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See [95]. Edison (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling. Just delete. -- Naerii 03:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See also [96] Edison (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I removed the messages he's been placing on article talk pages. He's probably pissed cause CFIF deleted an article of his or something. -- Naerii 03:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither threat nor hoax, just a random rant/trolling so its now deleted. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the account. If anyone has the slightest impression that this is anything other than a troll, feel free to report to the appropriate authorities, whoever they are. --Yamla (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a notice, I found some other disruptive users a couple days ago attacking CFIF, such as User:NO MORE CFIF. These might be sockpuppets. Soxred93 | talk bot 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where this belongs - USERPAGE: EBDCM

Had it on my watchlist to see the outcome of the block (not sure what happened to the ANI thread on it?). I noticed that today QuackGuru erased the users userpage completely. EBDCM noted on his talk page that he is taking a wikibreak until monday. I don't think we should be erasing his userpage in the meantime - or is this normal when someone is blocked? (diff) DigitalC (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If he's been indefed then he's persona non grata. Blanking a user's page isn't unusual. HalfShadow (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Some previous discussion has been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive394#User talk:EBDCM unblock review. --Newbyguesses (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Live mirror

Sorry, wasn't sure where to report this. [97] appears to be a live mirror. Stevage 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's material is freely available per the GNU license, what is particulary relevant about this mirror? - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be "live", based on the frequency of updates. Anyway, looks to have already been reported at meta. Stevage 04:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting pages of banned users

I wandered onto Editor Review and noted the , where I noted:

Wikipedia:Editor_review/Solumeiras Wikipedia:Editor review/Littleteddy

should they be filed somewhere or just deleted? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably recommend just leaving them. We don't necessarily need to expunge all existence of departed users (even the forcefully departed), and I suppose there's a small chance they might be useful for some reason, later. But that's not a particularly strong opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

breeched name

My user name has been hacked. It says i editted something three days ago. Well, the only problem is i have been away from my computer for a week. I believe user named Jakew is probably responsible. I think he had problems with my neighbor and he's taking it out on me. I swear! I havent even been home for a week yet it says i editted something on april 5. This is IMPOSSIBLE. What do i do? I already changed my password. Mayday2010 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming your story is reliable, there's nothing much for admins to do, here. You're responsible for the security of your machine and your account. If your account's been compromised, changing your password is one step; you may also want to disable any "remember me" features or otherwise protect your physical security. Mostly, though, take this as a lesson learned and be more careful in the future. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, make sure that the user who broke into your account can't get a new password e-mailed to him/her. Open your preferences, and make sure that if there's an e-mail listed - that it's an e-mail under your control. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll also want to secure your wireless network using WPA (not WEP) if you haven't done so already. Additionally, avoid public wireless networks when possible. If you do not do so, someone can hijack your session by sniffing for your session cookies and/or sniffing your login information. --slakr^\ talk / 11:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is slightly confusing, because eleven minutes before you wrote the above message, you made an edit in which you said that you did make those edits. Five minutes after that, you deleted that message, and then a minute later you left another message for the same user saying that you didn't. Perhaps you could clarify the situation? Jakew (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mayday2010, I also don't see where User:Jakew harrassed you - perhaps you could point that out? Because at the moment my finger is hovering over the block button for that edit. Black Kite 12:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also point to a similarity between the edit summaries of Mayday2010 and User:70.114.38.167 - the use of tildes in the summary. I wonder if there should be a RFCU between Mayday2010 and the ip, and Jakew (just to be on the safe side). I am not inclined to get further involved in this, since I am considerably irritated by the messages now on my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of good faith we're assuming here. User:Mayday2010 and User:70.114.38.167 are so obviously the same person, and so obviously out to harrass JakeW, that the only reason I'm not blocking Mayday2010 indef myself is that several admins with more experience than me have reviewed the situation and declined to do so. Please review the early history of User talk:Mayday2010; they were caught in 70.114.38.167's autoblock, and multiple admins declined the unblock request; I don't have time to wade thru the block logs to figure out how Mayday actually got someone to undo the autoblock, or who the unblocking admin was, but before I leave WP for the day, my suggestion is to block the sockpuppet. Not only is it a sock, but it's being used to harass. --barneca (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'm going to trust my instincts. I'm blocking Mayday2010 indef. as a harassing sockpuppet. Anyone who thinks there's more than a 0.1% chance Mayday and the IP are not the same person is welcome to revert without discussing it with me; I'll be offline for several hours. --barneca (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Harassment and stalking against Romanian editors

Nowadays, there are many signs against harassment and stalking against Romanian editors. I have to complain since I've been one of the witness of such campaign. See for example template:Romanian diaspora; Central Europe; Bălţi and Moldovans articles. I urge the stalkers to stop their continuous edit war and their campaign against Romanian editors.Marc KJH (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the list of Romanian editors that have been the victim of stalking and harassment:

• User:Olahus
• User:Rezistenta
• User:Marc KJH —Preceding comment was added at 10:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Among the harassers are:

• User:JdeJ
• User:NeroN BG
• User:Buffer_v2 (he was blocked for using socks, but only for a week, now he's again edit warring) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc KJH (talk • contribs) 11:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As a result, I had to open RfC against the first user:JdeJ. - Marc KJH (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to state this as forthright as I can, and I mean no offence: no-one will give a damn. They'll see it as more ethnic bickering, and it's so commonplace these days... Sceptre ^(talk) 11:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to comment. The above user, Marc KJH, is far from a witness nor a victim. He's the one who has just returned from a one week block because of harassing editors who don't share his opinions and, like many others before him, now wants to report those who reported him. Fine, I would then expect him to provide diffs of our harassment. I'm the first to agree that I have warned some of the users above. They are repeatedly deleting fact tags and other tags from the article Central Europe and never bother to provide any sources. I won't go into that discussion here as it is already very long on the relevant talk page. I do wan't to point out that comments about consistent deletion of tags is hardly harassment. As for Olahus and Rezistenta, I disagree with both users at times but outside our differences of opinions, I have no problems with either of them. Marc KJH is another matter, as he has returned almost immedediately to harassing me after his previous block for the same offense ended. This remark out of the blue is a case in point [98]. JdeJ (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The proof is that you have never edited Romanian articles only after you started to harass Olahus and me. You can't deny this fact. I have never invited you, nor will do it since you prove to be a stalker and harasser. You followed the articles that we edit. So, you're a stalker. Marc KJH (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have had several European Geography articles on my watchlist for months, you came to most of them after I did. As far as I can remember, I have only made one or two edits ever to articles dealing specifically with Romania. JdeJ (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't appologize for your stalking and harassment. I want to see it from you as a good sign. What's important is to get along. If you want it.Marc KJH (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't apologised for the fall of the Roman Empire either. As long as I haven't harassed anybody, and not even a diff of such an action has been provided, it's rather hard to apologised for something nobody but you thinks has happened. JdeJ (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel compelled to inquire why a user such as Marc KJH is editing articles on English Wikipedia in the first place, given that his command of English appears to be poor. I have some rudimentary French, but I wouldn't think of going to edit the French Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 12:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Hkelkar sock

Resolved

 – Blocked for being sockpuppet of Hkelkar

Possible Hkelkar sock. Special:Contributions/Hansel_gretel_toothdecay. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Model (person)

Something needs to be done, but I'm not sure if protection, blocking, wrist-splapping, or what is in order. Over at Model (person), there has been a slow, continuous edit war over the "correct" image of Gisele Bundchen to use. Of course, not a single entry on the talk page.

• User:Opinoso sets it to one
• User:FireOcean sets it to the other
• User:Opinoso sets it to one
• User:Mywikipedista sets it to the other
• User:Opinoso sets it to the one

This goes on, well, nearly forever in edit-warring timelines. On March 9th, the article was protected to put a stop to this. It worked until March 29th, when Opinoso starts it up again. Kww (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have applied a simple solution - I have removed the image entirely and replaced it with another model image from further down the article. The next person to put either of the darn Gisele Bundchen images back in (neither of which is particularly great, anyway) gets blocked. WP:LAME is the appropriate spot for this edit war. Neıl ☎ 14:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Bones Show

A gaggle of IPs seem to be using Bobby Bones Show as a chat-room. Perhaps it should be semi-protected to give a chance to clean it up. JohnCD (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I know vote soliciting is frowned on, guidance please

I know vote soliciting is frowned upon. Is there a policy or guideline that addresses vote soliciting? An essay? If so, could someone direct my attention to it? I looked. I can't find it.

If not, let me lay out the disturbing circumstances.

Two years or so ago a nominator admonished me for leaving some heads-up on the talk pages of some people who said, "if another article like this gets nominated, let me know". I didn't know this was frowned upon. And I haven't done it since. The nominator who admonished me showed me how to use the deletion sorting project.

Now, if I understand this issue, the use of the deletion sorting project is not considered vote soliciting because it is conducted openly and transparently. In particular the person who places a note about the deletion, or whatever, on the deletion sorting page, they put a link back to the deletion sorting page in the forum. I found someone I disagree with has used a similar mechanism, to draw the attention of people to a formal procedure discussion, but, in this case, they did so silently, and did not add a link back to their watch page in the discussion. I am concerned because this does not seem open and transparent to me.

Note: I did not mention the name of my correspondent, or the venue of the discussion, on purpose, because I am sure regular readers here would appreciate that discussion not slopping over here.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You could read up on WP:CANVASS and WP:MEAT. I'll check back in an hour or so, got to go to class. Grsz11 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRAMA = WP:ANI ?

I'm just a lurker, but is WP:DRAMA really supposed to link to this noticeboard? That seems odd... Dgcopter (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny. My last edit. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[99] and [100] --barneca (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

All the Crazy™

Heya, I am dealing with some rather "interesting edits" in the Fitna article. Some pretty aggressive behavior in the article discussion page, which is translating to some edit-warring in the article. I was going to request semi-protection as there appears to be some sock-farming going on there. Aside from the socking, a lot ofthe folk contributing there are pretty new, and its a bit Wild West-y there. A wikiquette alert report was filed (against me) complaining about my Obtructionist behavior in not allowing flagicons and whatnot, and I am increasingly of the opinion that the tone of the article discussion is being run on caffeine and aggro, and maybe even some good, old-fashioned oversensitivity. Maybe someone with deep boots could one-stop-assist with a semi-protection tag and a bit of that calming balm of an admin post suggesting folk cool their jets? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)