Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive254

User:Danny Daniel sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:MaxSem. Pants^(T) 19:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please block Sugarkisser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user has created a bunch of hoaxes just like the other likely sockpuppets listed at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. Pants^(T) 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot going crazy

Resolved

 – No problem with bot

The Bot that adds a date to the Citation Needed tags seems to be messing up an article I'm working on. See this version right after the Bot hit it. [1]. All the refs in the article are messed up. Before the Bot did its thing, all the refs were fine. For now, I've deleted the Citation Needed tags. Wonder what's going on. TimidGuy 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the bot. The references in the article were...unorthodox. I'm working on fixing them up some. --ElKevbo 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Glad to know that the Bot is fine and that it's the editors who messed up. : ) TimidGuy 19:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Could somebody take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Taylorluker/sandbox? I do not think the editor intended to start that page after investigation. I have placed the csd tag, it has however been removed. Thanks in advance, Navou 19:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Neil ╦ 20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

about the username Sinepgib

Resolved

 – Block seems appropriate and endorsed. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

recently, the admin. Anthony.bradbury blocked the user Sinepgib for being inflamatory because it reads backwards, bigpeniS. I feel that this is going slightly out of control on the rules because I know people with the last name Fruck and there are plenty of people with the name Dick. That does not mean that they can not have usernames like that so why block Sinepgib. This username could mean millions of things and picking out an innapropriet is slighty out of hand. I feel that they should not be blocked for having an inflamatory username and should be unblocked. There has to be a limit to what is inflamatory. --Salnjm 20:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Gosh what an interesting edit history for a new editor. --Fredrick day 20:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly clear the username is inappropriate. There are over a billion possible usernames... please chose another. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser extremely flawed

The checkuser is extremely flawed. My roommate is over 1000 miles away from the location of a known bad apple. Yet the checkuser claims they are using that bad apple's IP.

I am not mentioning which case because I don't want to get involved (happened within the past week). They will just accuse me of being the same person as the bad apple. There is a certain gang mentality in certain parts of wikipedia. This is bad.

I expect to be blocked but a reasonable administrator would look into the matter unless they have a gang mentality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtfulmind (talk • contribs)

<Quack quack> Well, logically, if someone's first edit is to ANI complaining about checkuser, they are highly likely to be someone blocked because of checkuser. Moreschi ^Talk 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be related specifically to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anacapa. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet checklist, let's see: New account's first edit is to complain about someone else (such as their roommate) being blocked. Check. Mention of corrupt admins. Check. Acknowledgement that people will suspect he's the same person as the blocked user. Check. Statement that a good admin would investigate instead of blocking this new account. Check. ChazBeckett 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User blocked, for obvious reasons. Block log message: "Goodbye". Moreschi ^Talk 21:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL--channeling Anne Robinson, Moreschi?--Blueboy96 23:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an easy case to solve. Anaconda is in the University of California, Santa Barbara. Is that complainer near Santa Barbara? If not, checkuser is flawed. If so, checkuser is correct. Feddhicks 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's already been solved. Checkuser was "likely" ("same location"). Editing patterns were conclusive. A violation of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. Next. MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Analyzing just the logic, not the specifics of the case, it's not been solved. The hypothesis was if the person is really 1000 miles away and the checkuser flawed or is the person in Santa Barabara. Whatever!Feddhicks 22:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC) "When it absolutely, positively has to...."

Hmm, just so all know, I'm a student of UCSB, too, and also sometimes edit from UCSB computers. Just so everyone knows there are legit users there. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting very messy. user:Hotpotatoes was banned for trying to avoid scrutiny by creating a sockpuppet account. They have evaded this block and trolled the Anacapa discussions using User:Thoughtfulmind and User:71.212.90.90. Either the checkuser is wrong or a meatpuppet is being employed - but its still trolling. I was the user who monitored Anacapa's behaviour and Hotpotatoes doesn't match the pattern - the language is wrong. On top of that the furthest IP away from UCSB I have for Anacapa is Glendale, CA, not Denver, CO. Hotpotatoes is a sock account by their own admition, whether of Ancapa or not I don't know. However they, and Thoughfulmind are in clear breach of WP:SOCK and 71.212.90.90 was used to block evade. If the checkuser was wrong Hotpotates should have emailed the blocking admin about it - trolling WP:AN and Community Sanction Noticeboard is out of line. Perhaps checkuser should look into User:Thoughfulmind's IP and put this issue to bed--Cailil ^talk 22:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way, it's the end of the ballgame for Anacapa, I take it.Blueboy96 23:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Contribution history

Please add new comments to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User contributions not appearing to prevent having many threads about the same problem around. Thank you. -- ReyBrujo 00:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack on fellow editor

I'm a disinterested third party in this. User:BrianGriffin-FG, at Talk:Family Guy#Meg's biological father, is hurling F- you's at a fellow editor, in boldface yet, and that's at the end of a long back-and-forth of his inappropriate arguments. It's an extreme lack of civility that someone might want to address. --69.22.254.111 22:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've redacted the attack and make a stab at an explanation on the users talk page. -M^ask? 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Salmoria

Can action please be taken to block this User for a small period of time. They have become involved in a revert war,been told off the WP:AN/3RR rule,and has ignored. They have vandalised my discussion page with fake vandal claims and repeatedly ignored advice given to them by other admin persons on their discussion page. Refer Tina Turner for the history of edits and reversals.Maggott2000 23:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be a fairly clear-cut WP:NPOV problem turning into a disruptive edit war. You can leave a message at WP:AN/3RR for 3RR violations. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is much more that that. This is clear misuse of the vandalism template, page blanking, probable sock puppet, vandalism of detail to the sbject and references, and offensive behaviour by the User. Please look into this. My talk page is a mess of this Users misguided and irrational behaviour Maggott2000 04:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How about some diffs for the admins and us rubberneckers? ThuranX 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Summers95926

I am having some issues with User:Summers95926, Nora Greenwald's self-proclaimed biggest fan. He has been vandalizing the article by removing large chunks of it, saying that "Nora requests for it to be deleted." All the information is from interviews and articles already published on the internet, and if she wanted to keep her "private life private" like he claims, then she shouldn't have said anything in the first place. Anyway, he also keeps adding tags to the article, claiming it needs clean-up, it is unencyclopedic, and he also tagged the entire article as unreferenced. Clearly it is not, or it would not have been made a good article.

• The talk page where we have been debating: Talk:Nora Greenwald
• He also threatened me here (Read the edit at the top of the screen)
• Examples of adding inappropriate and un-neccessary tags: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], among others
• Example of blanking sections: [7]
• Example of deleting sourced info [8]

It should also be mentioned that he has a Conflict of interest as he knows her personally and is deleting information (which I should mention is in no way libelous), thus conflicting with WP:POV and WP:NPOV. He is also a known self-promoter, which one can see by all the articles and pictures about and of himself listed for deletion here. He made his own page and page about his wrestling promotion, which have also both been deleted. Nikki311 00:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Given a little notice about WP:COI and WP:BLP, keep us updated on what is going on. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. I also left him a note on his talk page telling him to tell Nora Greenwald to contact Wikipedia if she wants. I also provided the link to the e-mail address for him. Nikki311 01:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Blanking of editor's comment by User:Someguy0830 at Wikipedia talk:Village pump. first instance Badagnani 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is your problem? Nothing was blanked, you were not hurt, and if anything he helped your message by not making it look like some newbie made the post. -- Ned Scott 00:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see, this is another page. The page you posted to was not a discussion page, that is all. -- Ned Scott 00:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Dang it, now I'm confusing myself. -- Ned Scott 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Second instance Badagnani 00:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Post it to Wikipedia:Village pump, not Wikipedia talk:Village pump. The talk page is only for talking about the village pump page itself. Phony Saint 00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn non-functioning contribs list. I would have commented sooner. It's like he said. Spamming that notice everywhere isn't productive. It didn't take me long to see you're heavily invested in this particular issue, so I'd suggest doing as you've already been told and calming down about the whole thing. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of Vandalism Template

Article for Joe Eigo has ostensibly been edited by the subject, contains zero citations, and is in need of a clean up. Made attempts to get citations for some statements, removed others, and tagged the article ([9], [10]). My edits have been repeatedly reverted, first by Naconkantari, then Starnestommy. I can no longer try to improve the article or I will be in breach of 3RR. I've also been given a vandal warning, which is obviously completely unwarranted. --81.179.113.175 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the objection that User:Naconkantari had was the number of cite-needed tags. I'm surmising this from the edit summaries, since no one's actually discussed any of their reverts at the talk page. Sometimes adding an overly large number of tags to an article can be a form of vandalism. In this case obviously it's not. Why not open a discussion on the article talk page? It sounds like User:Naconkantari was in favor of removing unsourced material, and just objected to the huge number of tags. I think you'll find common ground. MastCell ^Talk 02:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I did attempt to discuss the changes on Naconkantari's talk page but didn't really get anywhere. --81.179.113.175

Generally if you need that many cite-needed temps, you should go with the cleaner messagebox "citations needed" temp. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 03:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As to the article, I note that, in one of the diffs you provided, you used the autobiography tag. This is used when the subject has extensively edited the article. An editor named JoeEigo has edited the article, but only twice. What would you define as ostensibly or extensively? Also, do we have/need proof that this is Mr. Eigo? He's a minor celebrity, but well-known to LazyTowners like myself and is as susceptible to pranks as, say Julianna Rose Mauriello--Ispy1981 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

IP needing block repeatedly vandalising WP:AIV

• Resolved

   – blocked for 31 hours

71.108.59.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was previously blocked, and unblocked earlier. Has continued to vandalise and is removing the AIV reprort. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• never mind, resolved. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not exactly bright vandalizing the most patrolled place on the whole encyclopedia. --Haemo 05:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, he/she was removing a report made about him/her from the noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And removing the report pretty much instantly, which is why I reported it here... I don't think most vandals know about [[WP:AIV]. Oh, well. Any bets on a return engagement in a bit less than 31 hours? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

190.10.0.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are constantly changing certain articles' infoboxes from hex color coded to other "named" colors and linking common English words, even after being requested not to, and after being explained why not to. Examples: ([11]) and ([12]). (Full discussion about colors here, although not updated, consensus was reached.)

At what stage, if any, does these persistant changes become vandalism? This user has at most 5 constructive edits.

G.A.S 06:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would just start escalating templates, and keep up trying to discuss it with him on his talk - hopefully he'll get the message. --Haemo 06:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

School children - vandalising

Earlier this evening I blocked Murlock (talk · contribs) for repeated vandalism including moving Indonesian Declaration of Independence to Fake Indonesian Declaration of Independence. He responded to the block with this in short claiming that they are at school and all login at the same time causing vandalism to be attributed to the wrong accounts.

the other accounts

• Haggawaga - Oegawagga (talk · contribs)
• Blowland (talk · contribs)
• Kermanshahi (talk · contribs)

Any suggestions on what to do with these editors/accounts. Currently I've blocked them for all for 24 hours Gnangarra 13:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) has responded here Gnangarra 13:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a more reasonable explanation is that the kid is lying. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some association - they have edited each other's user pages without any comments or discussions, before or after. See discussion here. Merbabu 16:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time for an indefinite block and a hard IP block of all involved. I've asked User:Ciell who's an admin over at Dutch Wikipedia to comment. Kermanshahi is currently indefinitely banned as a sockpuppeteer and a known troublemaker over there. I gave Kermanshahi the benefit of the doubt last time Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi, but from the looks of it, he's outstayed his welcome. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is remarkably serendipitous - just yesterday, I made User:Neil/hmm because the above users' activity seemed hinky. They award each other barnstars, voted keep en masse on some very hoaxy articles (anbd I have a strong feeling a bunch of articles on medieval Frisian people are still floating around that are utter hoaxes with no references or references in Frisian). I would imagine we would need to checkuser the above users and also:

• Mrlob (talk · contribs)
• Ezza61 (talk · contribs) (note, I think this one is less likely to be a sock, but he edits the same articles, has the same barnstars, and edits 15 minutes before Murlock most of the time)

There also seems to be a raft of ropey walled garden articles that need going over. Neil (►) 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

School on a saturday? It is established with a dutch checkuser, that there are several accounts working from this (high)schooladress. I would advise you though, to contact User:Oscar, who did a cross-wiki check when I last requested a checkuser on Kermansjahi and his friends and told me he found more interesting stuff. Gebruiker:Blowland (user:Blow?) wasn't found to be a sockpuppet. The dutch policy about checkuser isn't that open as the english one, so I can't tell you what he found out. Ciell 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear this is not a schared school IP these guys are using. I'll doublecheck User:Blowland's contributions but I think it's a pretty obvious sock. Neil (►) 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

At least one of the three adresses is a school IP. Ciell 22:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's an open proxy? -- ChrisO 22:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, don't think so. RonaldB would have blocked them by now. I know someone else who edits from that adres, so am pretty sure. I'll alert Oscar, maybe he's up for it tonight. Ciell 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have talked with some Iranian users and they claim that there is absolutely no way Kermansjahi might be a Dutch schoolkid. He shows quite deep knowledge of Iranian history and culture that only Iranian or a professional researcher on Iran could acquire. He might be an immigrant from Iran but he must leave the country as an adult. This seems to contradict the sockpuppeting allegations. On the other hand, he obviously connected with Mrlob and some other members of the gang. I have asked Kermansjahi to explain his version of the events be Email Alex Bakharev 11:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Kermanshahi, even if there isn't a link with Mrlob (which I am convinced there is) is a confirmed sockpupeteer and troublemaker aside from this one incident. Given that, the checkuser seems to confirm things. Neil (►) 11:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets wait for his side of the story Alex Bakharev 11:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Neil, do you want me (a Dutch admin with Frisian roots living 10 miles from Friesland) to verify the possibly hoaxy articles? If so, can you provide me with a list? Aecis^Brievenbus 11:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Because of this new evidence I have decided to unblock Kermansjahi. I have an E-mail exchange with Kermansjahi and Gnangarra. The checkuser does not contradict Kermansjahi's version of the event, there are a few contribution history's edits suggesting that Kermansjahi might has some off-wiki connection to Morlock, there are other evidences that they are not the same. Kermansjahi himself denies that they are connected. I have assumed good faith and decided to unblock. Gnagarra agreed with unblocking if there would be doubts in the checkuser result that seems to be the case Alex Bakharev 06:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the "assume good faith" period has ended on Wikipedia-nl per june 19. See here for my addition in follow-up of what my colleagues Ciell and Oscar's information shared already. The Dutch file on this group of schoolboys can be found here and the reference on the main page is found here. As long as you keep the main account open the guys will keep up making new sockpuppets and be assured since school started they will again use them. Best wishes, MoiraMoira 15:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (adm on wiki-nl)

Possible death threat

May be I am wrong, but this seems to be worth reporting. User:ellol recently asked me on my talk page using slang of Russian mafia[13] the following:

Do you understand Russian well enough to realize that "...it is better to come to an agreement than to be killed by knife" (Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок) and that "someone must be punished for making too much noise [in Wikipedia]" (Западло не отвечать за базар)? Of course, he told later that he only "proposed this user [me] a simple test to check his ability to speak in modern colloquial Russia".

I wanted to ignore this incident, but ellol became very active recently and started making other outrageous claims, such as that I support Russian fascists (Movement Against Illegal Immigration [14]), and others, so it it might be a good idea if someone checked this. Of course, this is difficult to check because not every native Russian speaker understands well this criminal slang. Biophys 16:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are these users conducting whole talk page sections in Russian on the English wiki? It precludes a vast number of interested editors from checking the facts alleged in the citations. They don't provide translations or anything. Seems like that would be some sort of vio of OWN, since it ensures that many can't even discuss the matter. And in a section about citation, one guy states 'Here's what the cite said - big russian quote - , and that's what I put in. He didn't quote his edit, nor link the diff, and so on. Shouldn't most of the english wiki's discussions be in english, so as to make them most accessible tot he majority of the editing audience? ThuranX 16:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. He intentionally makes his threats using not just Russian, but Russian criminal slang, so few people can understand and block him. This is link [15]. This is his diff from my talk page where he came uninvited: [16].

• This is one of his statements (Russian):"Бабки рулят", "Путин меня не вставляет", "Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок)." My approximate translation: "Anything can be done for money". "I am not satisfied with Putin" "It is better to decide everything at the gangster's "court" meetings than to get a knife into the heart"
• This is his another statement (Russian): "Западло не отвечать за базар". My translation: "Someone must be punished for making too much noise" [in Wikipedia] (according to the context)Biophys 17:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain more. "заточка" means not just knife but a self-made knife, something more similar to a screw driver. Killing with "заточка" is a traditional way of killing "traitors" (like me) who betray secrets of the gang. "Cтрелка" ("распальцовки на стрелках") means a meeting of a gang (usually several gangs) where they decide who is guilty of violating "laws" of criminal world, and the person who is "guilty" is often killed immediately. That kind of nice message I have received.Biophys 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it means a shiv. I have asked Ellol to explain himself (and I would also like someone else to translate the above to confirm). I think a warning would be best if the translations are correct. Neil ╦ 17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've asked him to limit his comments about other editors on the english Wikipedia to english. That should make things easier moving forward. FeloniousMonk 17:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course, he explained me already that he only "proposed this user [me] a simple test to check his ability to speak in modern colloquial Russia" - just as I told above. Biophys 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That excuse particularly bothers me, as it implies "If you can read this, you'll know i'm connected, and leave me alone to get my way, or else!" That sort of 'cryptic' (secretive) comment, one which only afew can read, is far worse. Making AN/I do all this extra work when 'Fuck off or I'll kill you' in english would've been sorted out with an indef immediately. If this all is shown to be legit translations, this user should be banned. ThuranX 23:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these translations are correct (did he provided his translation?), although one should know this language of Russian criminal underworld to translate. But, as in any cryptic message, he did not tell "I'll kill you", and the message begins from a couple of nonsense phrases. Then, this threat goes. One important thing is his mentioning of Vladimir Putin just before the threatening sentence, as a reason why I deserved this, since I made many edits critical of Putin's administration and FSB, although I did not edit yet directly article about Putin himself (probably I should). Biophys 23:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC) I must tell that such threat is very real since FSB knows who I am and my address.Biophys 23:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask YOU if they are correct, I'm asking if another editor can confirm your translation. ThuranX 00:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. User ellol just provided his interpretation of this segment, which I disagree [17]. I can ask User:Colchicum or User:HanzoHattori to translate. Would that be O'K?Biophys 01:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted request for translation at talk page of User:Colchicum since he is a very neutral editor.Biophys 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is just crazy. The full text of the Ellol's entry was:

May I ask another question? How do you understand the following phrases: "Сколько метров у твоей видюхи?", "Меня прёт его гламурная тёлка и навороченная тачила", "Бабки рулят", "Путин меня не вставляет", "Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок", "КГ/АМ", "Западло не отвечать за базар", "Дело ЮКОСа разрулили по понятиям, а не по закону", "Задолбал толкать фуфло"? I'm certainly interested to understand your level of modern colloquial Russian language. ellol 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you understand the following phrases (my poor translation): "How many megabytes has you graphic card?"(Meters some time colloquially are used as megabytes because of the M abbreviation), "I appreciate his glamorous girlfriend and expensive car", "Money rules", "I am not excited of Putin", "Underworld meetings are still more civilized than a zatochka (a sharpened piece of steel used as a weapon by prison inmates and obviously barely used outside prisons there are much more deadly weapons are available) in a body", "Креатифф - говно/автор - мудак" (Creative piece is shit, its author is a dickhead; from padonki language), "You should be responsible for your words", "The case of Yukos was solved according to the underworld customs rather than the written law", "You are exhausting us with your lies". Ellols also asked Biophys to calculate $e_{ijk}\delta _{jk}$ Probably testing if Biophys knows Kronecker delta and Einstein notation. He obviously asks a random test of modern Russian internet-business argot (and a very simple test BTW, I left Russia 14 years ago and still do not have problem with the test. If a couple of phrases came from the criminal slang so they are vaguely threatening but this was obviously not the intended effect. Ellol was trying to make the point that Biophys does not understand the life in modern Russia there the power abuse by FSB for the most of population is a very small worry relative to the street crime, corruption, inter-ethnic problems, etc. I see nothing threatening in this message Alex Bakharev 04:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Alex here. Biophys simply took his quotes out of context to make it look like a threat. If you actually read the whole sentence, there is absolutely nothing threatening in it. Ellol merely wants to see if Biophys have a sufficient grasp of today's Russian slang. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe that CIA knows who I am and my address, but that wouldn't stop me from commenting on Biophys's complaints along the lines of "such threat is very real since FSB knows who I am and my address". Biophys is advised to stop posting rants about кровавая гэбня, Russian mafia, and other urban legends on this noticeboard. This is a wrong place for spooking people. I agree that non-English posts are not acceptable in English Wikipedia, although some wikipedians think otherwise. I'm afraid they will be very frustrated once the suggestion is formalized into a policy. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So, you simply accepted the original explanation by ellol that he only "proposed this user [me] a simple test to check his ability to speak in modern colloquial Russia". If you think it is O'K to come uninvited to someones talk page and leave him a cryptic message on Russian criminal slang claiming that "it is better to decide everything on gangster's court of honor than to be murdered by shiv" and mentioning Putin and that someone must be punished for making "too much noise" in next phrases, I have nothing more to discuss.Biophys 17:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that User:ellol should be more careful in his use of language that might be misinterpreted, especially when communicating with those with whom he disagrees. Threatening language should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat

I like CyclePat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I have been dealing with him on and off for ages, but his incessant campaigning in respect of AMA has gone well past the point of Pat's usual well-intentioned cluelessness and into trolling and disruption. I have blocked him until he gives an undertaking to leave it be. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah he has taken it too far despite warnings, maybe you could reduce it down to a 24 hour disruption block so he can have a think about things rather than an indef? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the 72 hour block given previously hasn't had that effect, so I'm not sure why 24 hours would... --pgk 22:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, your right, he continued after it - agree we should leave it as it is pending CyclePat agreeing to leave the issue. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• I concur. >Radiant< 14:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not solving anything here; the discussion has become counter-productive, please let it go.

---

Request for admin action re confirmed sockpuppetry

Resolved

Emnx has been listed as a suspected sockpuppet here and has been confirmed by checkuser. This also confirms 3RR violation and block evasion as listed in the suspected sockpuppet report. As this user has been vandalising user pages and edit warring on Mandrake Press, I request that appropriate administrative action be taken. IPSOS (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The sockmaster is blocked for one month, obvious sock indef, his IP for a week. I see no point in blocking the dynamic IPs he used ten days ago. MaxSem 05:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes sense. I just wanted to make sure to list them in case he tries to evade his block. Now we have a record of the IP ranges he uses. IPSOS (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:JB196, now using IPs

Resolved

 – Blocked one of the socks, and Yamamoto got the other one and the semiprotection. Riana ⁂ 03:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

62.231.243.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 74.192.233.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Looks like JB has run out of accounts, and is resorting to vandalizing my user page with IP's (probably open proxies). Someone mind blocking him and semi-protecting my user page while we get the proxies blocked? SirFozzie 03:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fozzie, I don't think he's ran out of sleepers. For the third day in a row, I had to protect his target articles a few hours ago. He began hitting them with IPs immediately after the protection expired, and I semi'ed them. Minutes after that, he then shifted to one of his sleepers, and I had to move to full protection. I don't think he has ran out of accounts, just saving them to hit said articles. Phaedriel - 03:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We should really give him a barnstar for all the help in identifying open proxies. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL! —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

He's using a new one, reported to WP:AIV. Vandalized his checkuser page with the IP, it's been added to that case. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, RJASE, and I think you may be right, Phadriel. and ONiH, I'd like to give him a Barnstar or two, as long as I get the choice of HOW to give it to him... (grins) SirFozzie 03:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I semi'ed the CU page for a day. And Fozzie, I've got one helluva barnstar for him... Phaedriel - 03:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! - Alison ☺ 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Now all we need is one of those airguns to deliver it at a high rate of speed ;) SirFozzie 03:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps this? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the article on the "star", it is thrown in a special way, sort of like a discus but as a weapon. Resurgent insurgent 09:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think showing a picture of a ninja star with the comment "I've got a barnstar for him" and subsequent comments about delivery of said ninja star might be construed as aggressive and threatening if you did not know that Phaedriel is (I hope) joking, as is everyone else, right? Neil ╦ 09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of threads this guy causes on ANI per day with sock reports I think any offensive weaponry we can throw at him is welcome, frankly. Deserves it. Ye shall reap what ye have sowed, etc. This fellow is busy sowing plenty of grapes of wrath. Moreschi ^Talk 10:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm joking, dear Neil, as everyone else is regarding the "star" - and I think our comments cannot be construed as anything but smirk. We're just blowing off a little steam aften chasing him and reverting his misdeeds for several days in a row. Mr. JBP shouldn't be afraid about his physical integrity while he's around us. However, I'd happily smash his computer... Phaedriel - 03:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath edit warring in Angeles City

RodentofDeath (talk · contribs) (again), along with two other editors who may be sockpuppets (my last request for a CheckUser was declined) are making specious arguments on Talk:Angeles City, and have resumed edit warring in Angeles City (again). I'm about to give up on this for the night because I'm about to hit WP:3RR, and anyway their Edit summaries are including (specious, insultingly so) reasons for which they will claim good faith edits.

Example argument:

remove "became known as center for prostitution" as article already states it became known as culinary center.[18]

rv. angeles has prostitutes. unless you wish to argue that point and that the population increased after WW2 then please stop revert warring.[19]

There are five (5) reliable citations for this article. This has been discussed repetitively on the talk page for that article. >150kb in the archives since this edit war began, and that's just for this article. (He does in several places.)

AN/I hasn't demonstrated an interest in this situation that I've noticed, but this has gone on for over a month. RodentofDeath has been entirely destructive, and the fact the he even bothers to make excuses (however incredibly lame) on Talk pages now qualifies this current period is his charm offensive. / edgarde 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reveryed the most recent edits, since this appears to be POV removal of sourced statements, and asked for more input on the talk page. --Haemo 04:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Like we needed more talk page input. Counting all the archives we have >300 highly repetitive kb of specious arguments against this sentence, and attacks on the editor who initially inserted it. It's really beyond discussion now. / edgarde 04:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just a formality - if he can't bring any new, substantial arguments, then we can revert his edits wholesale. --Haemo 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

well that doesnt sound very much like a neutral point of view but since we are pointing out comments please notice who wrote "(→Destroying Angeles again - There's been enough "talk". Put up or shut up.)" on the talk page history. RodentofDeath 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

if you are going to summarize please do so accurately. there was definitely not 300k of arguments on this one sentence. this article started out as an attack by one editor intent on destroying the reputation of a city she despises. most of the discussion successfully argued for the removal of the "welfare" section along with other false information used to distort the image of angeles. at no point have i attacked anyone other than to point errors they have written. meanwhile you are accusing anyone that disagrees with you of being me. RodentofDeath 13:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Block by Rebecca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I have an issue with a block made by User:Rebecca. I have tried discussing it with her but she does not seem to feel it is inappropriate in regards to the to issues I feel are most important.

1. It was not preventative
2. There was no communication prior to the block

Here is a basic time line of what happened:

• Sometime around May 25 I saw a notice on the Community portal to Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and I was shocked that the backlog was so large that Articles tagged in Dec of 2005 where being worked on. I started to help out. Note: I never sign up for these things even though I have pitched in with several, like the Biography Unassesed Article Drive, in the past.
• Most of what I did in the following days was retag articles which had {{unreferenced}} with {{refimprove}} or {{primarysources}} working through various letters in the categories.sample contribs The large majority of articles in these categories did actually have at least one source. However I also actually read through many articles and did other things as needed. I assesed articles, removed unsourced accusations of killing people, redirect to alternate named article on same subject, tagged copyvios, outright removed ref tags, etc. Basically I made several 100's of edits to these articles tagged for a year or more, with the idea they have generally not been given attention in areas besides referencing. I watchlisted all the artilces I edited and when I see a good, significant, non-IP edit come up I unwatch them figuring that if there were concerns with my actions something would have been said by then. I was not looking out to mass-delete articles, although going through these categories I certianly saw the necessity for some deletions. I was editing responsibly; improving Wikipedia.
• As I was going through these edits, I was leaving truly unreferenced articles alone. I was thinking to first clean up the category then deal with articles that actually belong in the category. Other people taking part of the project quickly cleared out the true unreferenced articles from Dec 05-May 06. None of these where even close to the monster that is June 06. A good number of articles from those categories where run through prod. Maybe 20 or so, I can't link to them of course. I looked over those articles as they were in the waiting period and felt I understood which sort of non-notabilities or violations of WP:NOT would be appropriate for prod.
• I was hesistant to start putting article through prod because of the situation on my watchlist. I decided I should start an alt account with a clean watchlist so I would not miss any concerns over articles I prod, and would be able to watch for any recreations. I created User:Birgitte-prod and left a note explaining why on my main user page.
• On two days (May 31 and June 2) I tagged about 27 articles with prod. I notified not only notified the creator, but also any other significant contirbuter I noticed in the history.diff diff While looking through the history I dilgently checked previous prods and altered any I found to AFD. oops needs afd. I responded to remarks made on the talk page questioning my actions with a calm civil explantionNotability - reply. Of course I cannot show diffs for the articles I first checked the discussion of to find a previous AFD Keep/no consensus notice which I didn't prod or the many more articles which have been unreferenced since June 2006 that a simple reading of the article clearly convinced me that it was notable. On May 31st I read all these things as I went, spending a few minutes on each article. On June 2 I first checked articles and discussion pages making a list before tagging anything for prod which let me edit about once per minute (still hardly bot-speed). The point is I was editing in a careful and responsible manner and not like a bot. In all the alternate account has less than a hundred edits total over a three day period and only 27 prods. Obviously after seeing Rebecca concerns I understan that they were not all the uncontroversial deletion candidates as I believed them to be at the time. I understand that my judgement was in error in some cases and I am happy to readust my criteria due to the concerns she has raised. I have no desire to prod articles which are contraversial, I was simply mistaken. After Rebecca reviewing my edits, I still have 14 active prods and one AFD with no oppostion.
• Based on the prods Rebecca disagreed with she blocked User:BirgitteSB-prod indefinately, with IP blocking, reasoning "Mass-prodding pages at random for being unreferenced, many indisputable notable." She left a note on my talk page stating she had blocked your user BirgitteSB-prod bot account for mass-prodding pages on the basis that they were unreferenced. . . Please find some other means of handling unreferenced articles. She also uses rollback to revert about 7 of the prods I placed, despite the fact that my edits are not vandalism. Of course I think it is clear that my account was 1) Not a bot (<100 over three day, sometimes at 1 edit per minute) 2) Obviously not "prodding pages at random" 3) Proding articles on the basis my belief that they were of non-notable (plenty of non-refernced articles were not prodded and I mention the non-notabilty in my reason) 4)Obviously going to be on the same IP address as my main account. 5)I was also "handling unrefeernced articles" by other means, as shown above, only prodding where I truly believed it to be appropriate. On top of the unsoundness of Rebecca's reasoning and her technical incompetence she blocked me A)Without first addresing any of her concerns with me B)Without any preventative purpose (indefinate block on an account not editing at the time still left standing). The mistakes I numbered show a lack of dilgence on Rebecca part, but the ones I lettered show a completely unacceptable use of adminstrative power. Rebecca needs to understand that disscusion before a block and blocks as preventive messures are an absolute neccessity when dealing with established contributors.
• Eventually despite there being confusion and my auto-unblock request being declined someone unblocks my IP, but doesn't notify me. Or maybe I was unblocked first and then had the auto-blocked declined. Anyways, I leave some messages on my talk page to explain the truth of the situation and outlining why the block was inappropriate asking Rebecca to respond. OK you blocked an account that was not a bot, was not actively making edits at the time, without adressing the issue with me personally, AND you blocked my IP so I cannot edit at all. I expect you to seriously change your blocking procedures. The above block was completerly out of line and is quite an inconvience since I can't edit at all now. Just to be clear (clarify issues) . . . I am signing off for the night but someone please copy this to Rebecca talk page. Rebecca, you seriously need to think about what you are doing with the block button. You need to be certain you resoning is sound and you need to know how blocking actually works regarding the IP.
• Rebecca responds with I did not realise that it was a manually-operated account . . . How on earth did you get to the conclusion that they were "uncontroversial deletion candidates"? There is not a chance in hell that any of those I've listed would have even passed AfD. Which is certainly less civil than anything I have written, and she is the one blocking me! She does not lift the improper block or address any of the issues I raised with her actions.
• I leave her note with the explantion she asked for and reassuring her I will readjust my criteria based on her concerns. And asking her once again to adress my concerns about the inappropriate block.
• She responds critizing the same prods again despite the fact I have already reassured her that I change my behaivior based on her concerns. She apologizes for the IP block, but stating If you or anyone else behaved in this manner again, I would block you in a second . . . If I had known it was not a bot, at the speed the account was going and with the edits it was making, I would have blocked it for disruption.

Clearly Rebecca is not going to see that blocking in such a manner is inappropriate through discussion with me. I am not contesting that the disputed prods should be deleted as I am more than willing to accept her judgement that I was mistaken there. I have made it clear I will be more strict with which articles I tag for prod in the future. I don't think I can do anything else beyond these things. I am not at all saying she is wrong about {{prod}}, and that my edits were correct. I am saying that my edits were not blockable offences. Obviously if I had continued to edit in this fashion after someone shared their concerns with me, it would merit a block for disruption. However this was not the case. Please can someone else help her see that her adminstrative actions were inapropriate, because I don't believe I can get through to her.--BirgitteSB 04:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The account concerned had been making dubious edits at a rapid speed. From a look at the edits, some of which were very strange (a good number of these would have obviously got either a unanimous or speedy keep had they been taken to AfD), I assumed it was tagging articles upon some sort of formula-gone-wrong. I was apparently wrong on this matter. I thus made the block of the seperate account (mistakenly hitting the wrong button when I did so and blocking his main account, which was promptly fixed), and explained why I had done so on Birgitte's talk page. Birgitte has stated that he will be more careful about his taggings in future, and I see no reason why this dispute need continue. Rebecca 05:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My experience with BirgitteSB (on WikiSource, for example, where she is a long term contributor to very great effect) has been that she is uniformly thoughtful and helpful, even when I do not agree with her, and always open to reason and discussion, and someone who works hard to benefit the projects she is involved in. This is behaviour to be strongly encouraged (it sounds like she was tacking a thankless task that was woefully backlogged) and I am not sure that blocking was the appropriate course of action to take here. I'd note that Jimbo himself has pointed out that sometimes summary deletion of unreferenced articles is the best approach, as "no article" is better than a "bad article". ++Lar: t/c 10:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lar. That was a poor block. It would appear that the mistake has been put right now and I'm sure Rebecca will be more careful in future. --John 15:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Since my above posting has convinced you to undo the block, I have no desire of continuing the dispute. I will say that I really do hope you have had a change of heart in regards to the statements: If you or anyone else behaved in this manner again, I would block you in a second . . . If I had known it was not a bot, at the speed the account was going and with the edits it was making, I would have blocked it for disruption.. Even if you will not publicly retract this, please do not block good-faith editors without first alerting them to your concerns in the future.--BirgitteSB 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Doc Glasgow

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

I would like to complan about the single track narrow mindedness of this user. The user is unilaterally deleting images and postingh copious ammounts of articles for deletion claimg they are biographies, when they are murder articles and also restoring to their version and closing AfD reviews when they were inherntly involved in the original deletion. I think the user needs to be more civil and think about what they are doing before being single tracked and doing what they want as if they own wikipedia.--Lucy-marie 10:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Kindly take a ticket and stand in line. I would suggest first trying to discuss the issue with the admin in question (if you haven't) you also have WP:DRV, WP:RFC and this arbitration case that he is currently involved in relating to similar actions to those you are complaining about. Other avenues of dispute resolution exists apart from those listed - I would suggest reading WP:DR. Viridae^Talk 10:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Looks like he's doing a good job of getting rid of NN articles - thanks for shining the spotlight on those NN articles, I'll be over to them to make a delete case on most of them. --Fredrick day 10:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• There is an arbitration case currently open dealing with this entire matter, and the several editors who are involved in it. There is no reason to have mini brush fire discussions about it on the administrators' noticeboard. I'm closing this discussion. Uncle G 10:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Deletion by editor of hundreds of external links; failure to discuss; edit warring

The detailed background to this can be found at [20]. It has been suggested that this is the appropriate forum, so I turn it over to you.

My first problem is that this editor deleted of hundreds of external links without discussion, rather than discuss the deletions on a talk page as I suggested at the very beginning of his deletions, and instead engaged in edit warring. This is evidenced by the diffs at the above. The editor denies it to be the case. Checking the diffs shows that this is in fact what happened.

In short, the editor has deleted hundreds of baseball statistical and biographical urls that were external links in baseball player bios because of what he understands is the directive for him to be bold, and due to his subjective view that the urls should be deleted. I believe his deletions are not only substantively wrong-headed, which is being discussed now at the above url, but that they are doing damage in the interim. If he wishes to challenge such links, in my view, Wiki policy is clear that rather than delete the urls, he should post a template. See [[21]]. It will be difficult if not impossible to restore links once the matter is resolved, if that does indeed happen.

The editor originally claimed that the urls were deleted because they constituted link farms, and contained identical content. This was subsequently disputed by a number of editors, including two whom I contacted immediate to help -- Wizardman and Nishkid64 -- the two admins in the baseball project. Their comments are the first two that you will see other than mine and his. Even now, days later, the editor has just deleted more urls, as one can see at [22] -- with slightly different rationales, such as "removed sites with nearly (emphasis added) identical content, sites that didn't need to be in their (sic)."

It would be appreciated if: 1) appropriate action could be taken vis-a-vis the editor for his having made hundreds of deletions while initially ignoring the request to discuss, and then concurrent with discussion; and 2) action could be taken to have him RV his deletions pending the finalization of the discussions on the above url. If need be, though it is not clear to me that this is appropriate given that fact that there is an ongoing discussion, he could tag the articles once he has RV's his deletions, and untag the articles upon conclusion of the ongoing discussion. Thanks. --Epeefleche 10:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at London Metropolitan University

Could an administrator intervene at London Metropolitan University? This looks like a severe edit war. Dr. Submillimeter 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've talked with Crewsaver on his talk page about the issue. He's a pretty new user, but he seems open to working through dispute resolution on the issue (talk page discussion, maybe an article content RFC). As a good faith gesture, he's re-added some aspects of the anonymous editor's additions that he doesn't find particularly objectionable. Now, we just have to see whether the anon is willing to do likewise. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Political succession boxes (large scale removal without discussion)

Emerson7 (talk · contribs), who was blocked just a month ago for similar behavior, is going through various political bio articles and removing succession boxes. S/he claims that the succession boxes are "deprecated" but gives no evidence that there has been any discussion to support that claim. Attempts to engage in discussion results in him/her ignoring me and/or telling me s/he is correct per WP:SENSE and/or adding the article to WP:RFPP. S/he already has one article locked in the inconsistent state (Romualdo Pacheco). WRK (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Emerson7's disruptive reverts are continuing and have also been reported at WP:AN3. If you look at his/her contribs, everything lately is reverts. WRK (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked that emerson stop removing the boxes pending discussion and or a link to a community decision or other discussion depricating the succession boxes. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

in my own defense (realizing this may or may not be the correct forum), this has be ongoing for several days...WRK has not refused to act in good faith and has accelerated and expanded 'war' see yesterdays 3RR requests. --emerson7 | Talk 14:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This issue goes much deeper than Wp:3RR. Unless you can show a consensus against the succession boxes, it would appear that they are a very common practice included use in the presidents of the united states. What I see is you trying to make changes against consensus then hiding behind the WP:3RR rule to get them to stick. Try to get a consensus against the boxes if you dont like them, dont just remove them. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am acting in perfectly good faith in simply keeping the California governor articles consistent with the governor articles of every other state. I've also attempted to engage you in constructive discussion only to be called immature and told that I am not using WP:SENSE. You are making large-scale changes with no hint of discussion or consensus. WRK (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets remeber to keep cool. It'll all get sorted out! Dont stress about it! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Molag Bal sock

Hello, I think User:Rugbyman 5000 may be a sockpuppet of Molag Bal. Just yesterday User:Martinp23 blocked User:81.154.110.210 as it was a Molag sock and had reported both me and User:Cometstyles to WP:AIV because we were apprently socks of Molag ball, he was blocked for one month and his unblock request denied after he requested it, a discussion on the IPS talk page then went underway between me and him and he began to get abusive and threatened to kill himself, his user talk was then semi-protected to prevent further abuse, the at 16:08 (GMT); User:Rugbyman 5000 was created and he immediately nominated me for adminship (I've now requested speedy deletion of the page for the reasons listed on the {{db-reason}} tag. He then edited my userboxes page adding two of the {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}} twice onto that page, which transcludes in a green format onto my userpage, however if you look their was a userbox their saying This user is is not a Wikipedia administrator and does not wish to be one currently, when I edited as Tellyaddict I had said several times that I did not want an RfA at that time and despite this, it was created and regretfully I accepted that nomination but the RfA for my new username (The Sunshine Man) I have declined. It just seems odd that a user would create an account just to nominate for adminship. Any thoughts. Regards --The Sunshine Man 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's severe enough file a checkuser. If not, wait for more contributions of this user to determine if the edit pattern is similar to the accused party. Miranda 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gryffindor out of control

Gryffindor keeps on moving Meran to Merano against the consensus and WP:NCGN. (see also the above report by Pmanderson).--Supparluca 17:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Now he has protected the page abusing his admin powers.--Supparluca 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to work this out with Gryffindor. On first sight, it does look like rather questionable use of the admin tools to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please consider that this isn't the first time at all. He started to abuse his powers in 2005, always with his strong point of view, and always (for what I know) on articles related to that province, usually with subtle and bully behaviours.--Supparluca 18:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a complicated situation with possible mis-steps on both sides. See [23] for questionalbe accusations of vandalism. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gryffindor made one controversial move in a questionable interpretation of the results of a straw poll he had himself initiated and voted in. On being reverted, he today repeated his move three times within few hours and then protected his version. I've reverted his move to the status quo ante and kept move protection on that version in effect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your celerity, though I obviously think that's not enough.--Supparluca 18:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Watch List on Project Space

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=next&oldid=135583956

An editor issued me a fake warning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism

The watchlist in project space was a keep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts&diff=next&oldid=135581510

However, an editor(s) is trying to speedy delete it after it was kept. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

An article can still be speedily deleted after an MfD, so long as it meets CSD requirements. Passing an XfD does not give an article immunity against further deletions. Phony Saint 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

what confuses me is that the stated reason for the XFD is reposted material - but what's it a repost of if it survived it's MFD? --Fredrick day 18:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it's not a repost, but QuackGuru didn't state that in his edit summaries or here. After the original article - this article - was moved to project space, someone recreated the article in mainspace, and that was the article deleted. I was about to revert myself when I saw you already did it. Phony Saint 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. This sounds settled then. Mr.Guru, in the future don't remove an AfD template, but rather follow the "hang on" instructions contained within. Removing the AfD template as you had done [24] is considered vandalism. Hence, my warning to you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Levine2112, he still believes my edit was vandalism when it was not. He knows it was not a repost. He voted in the MFD.[25] He knows it was a keep. It can't be a repost in project space when it survived the MFD. Levine2112, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point with your unfounded warning. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 has issued me another unfounded warning. This time, I made a single edit to an article and he has dumped on my talk page a warning of edit warring.[26] This is harressment and uncivil behaviour. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing an AfD is considered vandalism. Separtely, your involvement in the editing of Coral calcium constitues edit warring. In each case, the warning template I placed on your page was appropriate. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed an inappropriate speedy delete tag. It did not meet the criteria for speedy delete. You do not believe it was vandalism because you have not reverted back to the tag.[27] Making a single edit to an article is not edit warring. Please stop with your incivility. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing an AfD tag from an article which you created is considered vandalism. I didn't revert because of the discussion here which I believe cleared up the situation. Next time you are presented with an AfD tag on an article which you created, rather than removing the tage, consider following the "hang on" instructions in the AfD notice, as removing the tag can be construed as vandalism. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove an AFD tag. I removed a speedy delete tag. You knew it was not a recreation. You participated in the MFD. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Same deal. Removing a speedy deletion tag from an article you created can be considered vandalism. Next time, please consider following the "hang on" instructions in the template, if you wish to contest the nomination. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:CSD: Any editor who is not the author of a page may remove a speedy tag from it; the author may not do this, but instead should place a {{hangon}} tag on the page. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No wikilawering. You got it backwards, again. You knew in advance it was not a repost. How could you consider it vandalism when you participated in the MFD and knew fully well it was a keep. You can't repost a watchlist when it was never deleted in the first place. I consider it uncivil for any editor to put a speedy tag when they know the article's detailed history. The key is that you knew it was not a repost and yet you accused me of vandalism. Rubbish. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 cannot explain away the fake warning for alleged edit warring when I made a single edit to coral calcium.[28] Very odd behaviour. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to make uncivil accusations. I did not know that it was not a repost or whatever it is your are claiming. What I know is that you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page which you authored. This can be considered vandalism; hence the warning on your talk page. All the warning was meant to be is educational to you so next time you would know not to remove such a tag from a page which you authored. Please assume better faith. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attribute vandalism to my name again or you will reported for your disruptive behaviour. You still can't explain the ficticious warning for edit warring when I made a single edit. A single edit is not edit warring. Your warning was not educational. It was harrassment. You did not AGF with me and you continue to contrue vandalism to my name. I do not vandalise and it was not edit warring. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what other way there is to explain that removing a Speedy Deletion template from an article which you authored can be considered vandalism. It isn't about whether or not I agree with the template. It's about following the policies. And the policy is: "If you are the author of this article, don't remove the template." That's all there really is to say. I am sorry that you are turning this is into something personal between us. I assure you that is not the case. I have warned many users for doing the exact same thing which you did. No one else has reacted like this. This is fairly routine practice for the VandalProof team members such as myself. Again, nothing personal. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not work like that. Levine2112 knew in advance it was never a repost. He knew I was the original author. He participated in the MFD. The MFD was a keep. He commented on the talk page after the resulting keep.[29] He knew all this and he still thinks it was vandalism. No. It was not. He tried to delete it as a repost but it did not work this time around. He also knows I did not edit war. He can't talk his way out of that one either. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have spoken my mind on this issue and see no need to continue on this until if and when an Admin responds here. In the meantime, I would appreciate that your discontinue your bad faith accusations about me. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 has not provided a reason for the harrassment warning[30][31] of edit warring when I made a single edit to the Coral Calcium. That speaks volumes. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the next posting [32] where I explicitly spell it out for you: "This includes removing an AFD template". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

After it was moved to project space I did a lot of work on it. A new and changed article was posted in mainspace. They are trying to delete it as a repost again when they know it was never a repost in the first place. It was originally moved to project space by consensus. After I worked on it in project space, I posted it in mainspace in accordance with policy. It is very different from the original article and it was voted to keep in project space. After I did a lot of work on it and posted it in mainspace it was tagged as a repost which was not true. Now, they want to delete the watch list from project space for no reason. Again, it was voted to keep in project space. The key is understanding the MFD was a keep. There is a long complicated history of moves with this list. In the confusion they were succussful in deleting it as a repost in mainspace. In the beginning, I created an article in mainspace. It survived deletion and was subsequently moved to project space. To make a long story short. I did a lot of work and made considerable changes to the article and posted it back and mainspace. It was not a repost. It was deleted as a repost. It was a logical fallicious argument made by some Wikipedians. Of course you know how things can get on Wikipedia sometimes. I opened a deletion review. I have provided proof it was a different article with substantial changes to the text of the article. After it was moved to project space I did a lot of work on it. A new and changed article was posted in mainspace. They are trying to delete it as a repost again when they know it was never a repost in the first place. It was originally moved to project space by consensus. After I worked on it in project space, I posted it in mainspace in accordance with policy. It is very different from the original article and it was voted to keep in project space. After I did a lot of work on it and posted it in mainspace it was tagged as a repost which was not true. Now, they want to delete the watch list from project space for no reason. Again, it was voted to keep in project space. The key is understanding the MFD was a keep. There is a long complicated history of moves with this list. In the confusion they were succussful in deleting it as a repost in mainspace. I want many experienced administrators to overview. Per deletion review policy any administrator can undelete and overtrurn deletion. If you agree, it may be possible to return this article back to its proper place in mainspace. Thank you very much. Please advise me if there is any options for me left. A good article deserves to be in mainspace. I have provided proof it was a different article. This article is a great resource tool. A library of information. And belongs in mainspace. Please return this list to mainspace and explain on the talk it was not a recreation. In fact, it was a substantially different article. All in all, we should not reward people who take advantage of Wikipedia's openness who misrepresent the quality of an article just because they don't like it and who pretend it was a repost. Godspeed and hooray to Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts&oldid=99780515

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_1

Sincerely, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the main problem was that the article's talk page wasn't moved when the article was moved, so nobody really knew the article's history; I fixed it and it now resides at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of skepticisms and scientific skepticism concepts. I suggest closing this thread since there isn't any necessary admin action needed. Phony Saint 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Its time (mainspace)

All allegations it was a repost have been summarily debunked. Now then, to the mission at hand. I recommend it be put back into mainspace right now, because the article has gone through a major transformation and the text of the article has considerably changed. Any thoughts. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What part of moving this article requires admin intervention? Take it to the talk page of the article or the WikiProject. Phony Saint 01:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. This article has repeatedly been deleted from mainspace. You already took it to DRV and lost. If you repost it is mainspace, it will be deleted again as a repost. The way, the truth, and the light 02:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The old version was deleted from mainspace. This one is the new version. This requires administrative assistance and approval. Also I moved the article before. It did not work properly. The talk page got left behind. I forgot about it. It would be easier if an experienced administrator would go ahead and review. After a determination has been made it can easily be put back in mainspace. I hope administrators can offer their assistance. Thanks. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The AfD and DRV comments were against having any article based on this concept in mainspace. The talk page has been fixed. The way, the truth, and the light 02:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It was based on an old version. The new version is organized and different. This requires administrative oversight to sort this out. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't, you're trying to circumvent consensus by bringing it here. Take it to DRV again or the talk pages; AN/I is not deletion review, or article review for that matter. Phony Saint 02:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How can I take it to DRV again? Where is the policy to open a second DRV when the article has been updated? There is no policy covering this matter at hand. The talk pages are not for this matter. I am asking here for administrative guidance on the path never taken. The first DRV was deletion as a repost which was unfounded and easily debunked. Again, there is no specific policy on this. We are breaking new waters. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism&diff=next&oldid=104740040 According to Levine2112 the article met the criteria for speedy deletion. He charged me with reposting deleted content. Nothing was further from the truth. This kind of misrepresentations should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. The text of the article was considerably different and the enitre article was reorganized. Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I charged you with nothing more than removing the speedy delete template. So I simply reverted the edit and warned you that it is considered vandalism to remove a speedy delete template from an article which you authored. I really wasn't think about the MfD from five months ago. I was just going about my usual anti-vandalism business. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 has also charged me with edit warring on the Coral Calcium which was a lie. I made a single edit and he harrassed me with a warning. The allegations have no merit or validity. Levine2112 is unable to provide any evidence of edit warring. He made it up. Levine2112 can't cover his tracks by explaining his way out of this. Levine2112 has presented a false picture, please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article. You teamed up with another editor with whom you have an alliance and joined in a edit war to help prevent that editor from breaking 3RR. It should be noted that the editor with whom you teamed up with dropped the same edit warring warning on another editor who only made one reversion as well. Like you, that editor promptly deleted the warning. Unlike you, that editor recognized that the warning is just a warning, stopped his edit warring and moved on. I suggest you do the same. Finally, it should be also noted that the edit which you reverted was changed back. It was discussed on the talk page and it appears that you and your edit warring "teammate" were in the wrong policy-wise. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks after being told repeatedly to stop, using various IPs

An editor complained at the help desk about something in the article on Labrador Retrievers[33] calling another editor "delusional" or, rather, suggesting another editor might be delusion (I suppose if they didn't write an article that exactly agreed with this editor's opinions). This editor was asked politely to stick to the topic and post on the article's talk page, and to not discuss the other editor there. This editor then posted a comment on the article's talk page calling the other editor "paranoid." I removed the edit, and warned the poster on his talk page, with a level 3 warning, in light of the name calling, and having been asked not to continue in such a manner. The poster is using an IP address, and is changing IP addresses to repost the same comments, which I removed again from the talk page.

My question is, can I now ask for this user to be blocked, who is posting from a range of IPs, and how do I got about it? Should I give a final warning, and where do I give it since the user is changing IP addresses within a range of addresses? KP Botany 00:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you try request for page protection? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, hadn't thought of that. It's for a talk page, will it be done for a talk page? I guess I don't see why not. Thanks. KP Botany 02:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking over it, it seems as if its just one individual doing the same edits. Your RFP will probably be denied (unless it was from a lot of editors), however, the last edit by the IP received a L4 warning (continuing from the others). If it continues, apply for help at WP:AIV and cite the other IPs. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the mistake of talking back to them a while back, so quite obviously I'm the editor this person is so intent on speaking out against. I made comment about them on this board a few days ago, which is archived here. In case of future reference, it has a list of the IP addresses the person had used, though I did not include edits to the talk page. I am concerned about possibility of having to report them to WP:AIV some time, because of, among other things, the fact that putting warnings on their talk page is rendered useless by the constant change of address. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 14:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Short term RFsP was granted, and the admin removed the personal attacks. However, when requesting semi-protection I did not realize that this page had been granted a short term semi-protection before and that the IP returned and continued with precisely the same behaviour (I also lightly scolded and complimented User:Sarranduin for so politely tolerating the obnoxious behaviour--there has been no return on the personal attacks, so the situation has not escalated, just stayed the same, one IP editor spewing incomprehensible venom at another editor). I will request that the IPs be blocked when it returns, unless someone has a more useful suggestion. The IP is not reading the article, in addition to not reading any warnings or comments, and is simply intent on reposting the same personal attack. KP Botany 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Article History

On 6/2/07, I created the article Allison Stokke, not realizing that it had already been created and deleted. There is an ongoing, very active DRV, but I wish to raise a different, more serious issue: my edits to that article no longer appear in the article history. There are edits before mine, and after mine, but looking at my own User Contributions page, my edits have simply disappeared. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this appears to be an outrageous abuse by some Admin, unilateral censorship *way* outside the bounds of Wikipolicy. I want my edits back in the article history and my User Contributions, whatever the result of the DRV. Bete Noir 17:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct - your edits were deleted out by User:Sean William. If the article remains, then this is a violation of GFDL which will need to be resolved. If it is deleted, all the other edits will be deleted, and there will be no problem. Neil ╦ 17:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not admin abuse. He stored one version of the article instead of all the versions. The article was deleted a few times and recreated a few times. Sean Williams chose to restore one particular version (the one from around May 31) instead of the one that you recreated after that one was deleted. It is not abuse, just choice of what version to restore for consideration during the DRV. Further, it is not a GFDL violation because the article was not built around your edits. Your edits were deleted, the full article history was later restored, then someone added the DRV template and more edits were made related to the DRV template, then Sean Williams deleted your version and the other version leaving just the May 31 version plus the recent DRV template edits. None of this violates GFDL since your edits are not in any version of the article that currently exists. Metros 17:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, maybe I read it wrong ... are you sure they're not in the article? Neil ╦ 17:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the only edits that exist are the May 31 edits of the article and the June 4 additions of the DRV template. BeteNoir's edits were on June 2 and remain deleted. Metros 17:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, apologies on my part to Sean William. Doh. Neil ╦ 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

But please explain why my edits are gone from my own editing history? My own User Contributions? Bete Noir 17:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Because deleted edits do not show up in a user's contributions. Metros 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

When The Cunctator restored that article, he sloppily restored every edit ever made to that article, which included two irrelevant re-creations. If I had let it be, then the history of Allison Stokke would have logs of the individual page creations, which would be confusing. Instead, I decided to delete the two stubs in favor or the larger version that is being debated at DRV. This is neither abuse nor censorship. Sean William @ 20:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard is treating contested/controversial proposals at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial, and moving pages without consensus

Yesterday, an unregistered editor added two proposals at WP:RM to the Uncontroversial proposals section. I happened to notice that one of these proposals was contested, so I checked and noticed that this IP editor had recently started making name changes to Ftr which were then reverted by different editors here, and here.

This IP editor also started making name changes to BMI Baby, which were reverted by different editors here, and here, and here, and here. This IP editor knows these page move proposals are clearly not uncontroversial and should never even have been added to the uncontroversial proposals.

I went back to WP:RM to move these to the contested proposals section, but Anthony Appleyard had gone ahead and moved the pages, even though the edit history showed this would be contested (another IP editor even added a comment opposing this move, which was ignored).

So I moved the pages back to their original title, including detailed edit summaries why I was doing so, but the proposals were re-added by the same IP, to the uncontroversial section again, even though they were clearly contested). Unbelievably, Anthony Appleyard has again ignored the dispute in the edit histoy and moved both pages, apparently just because they were in the uncontroversial section. In the case of Bmibaby, User:The Gannet, User:Trident13, User:Gandoman, User:MilborneOne and myself, all dispute that BMI Baby is the correct name (the Civil Aviation Authority and the airline's own website, and many other reliable sources, refer to it as one word; "bmibaby"). Ironically, I have little interest in these subjects or their correct names, the main problem is this admin is being over-zealous and apparently moving any page that is added to the uncontroversial proposals, even if they could be contested or controversial. Crazysuit 18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered speaking to Anthony about this first? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the all back, as it appears to be a case of not paying attention to the history of the page, but I will pop a note at his talk page. The Evil Spartan 18:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

They were proposed as uncontroversial because:

• They are supported by the naming conventions and the manual of style (and therefore are backed by community consensus)
• The proposed formats are supported by the references, as well as the rules of English (and therefore are backed by community consensus)
• When proposed on the talk page, no dissenting opinion was put forward

Therefore, I cound only conclude that the moves were consensual, and in the absence of any overwhelming evidence to overturn the strong consensus reposed in the NC and MOS, the reverts were contrary to that consensus. Hence they were put forward a second time for speedy reversion (as a result of User:Crazysuit's deliberate sabotage of the resulting redirects). 81.104.175.145 22:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A comrade does not tolerate GDP map

I am almost embarassed to report this bizarre incident. This may not be vandalism per se but certainly Cold War POV.

This editor has reverted (exactly once daily) this apparaently harmless bubble map of gross domestic product in 2005 based on IMF data. The map was a simple replacement for colour-coded map to resolve accessibility issues faced in old computer screens.

This editor strongly believes I am pushing America-centric POV.

Also see related discussion here

What action, if any, would be taken? Anwar 18:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll first note that I strongly disagree with characterizing this dispute, however obliquely, as "vandalism". It's a content dispute that ought to be more fully hashed out on the talk page. That said, I concur with Elk Salmon and Giandrea that the original image is superior to your replacement. The "bubble map" leaves most countries with no data at all and is more difficult to comprehend. — Lomn 19:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is 'comrade' meant to imply that they are socialist? —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 19:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Aside from this being purely a content dispute, the map currently in the article seems to be a lot better than yours, if only on the basis that yours says nothing at all about half the countries in the world. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Chris. Upon seeing your map, my first thought was, 'why dots, instead of ust coloring in the nation?' I see such a map is available nad in use. Let's use it. ThuranX 02:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Status report? (User:Night Gyr)

Resolved

I was emergency desysopped last friday over a misunderstanding of something I said in the Allison Stokke drv, which someone interpreted as a threat to leak deleted revisions to the press. Now my intents been clarified, the article has had a history undeletion (so the revisions are visible anyway) and arbcom's been dragging its feet for the last couple days without giving me a single word on what's going on. Does anyone know? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest leaving a note at the bureaucrat noticeboard for resysopping. -- John Reaves (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Right - but it will bear more weight if someone else asks for him. That's called DefendEachOther. I asked at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Night_Gyr. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw on another talkpage the other day a comment from an arbitrator to the effect that the matter was still being discussed on the arbitrators' mailing list. I assume that the 'crats would wait to hear from ArbCom before taking any action, although the time is coming when hopefully some sort of more official update on the situation will be posted. Newyorkbrad 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course I forgot that there is are people who are 'crats and arbitrators—Raul654 has posted that he has resysopped Night Gyr. Newyorkbrad 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it turns out the crats aren't arbcom, after all. The bit has been restored. Friday (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As I just noted (we must have just missed ec'ing), this particular crat (Raul654) is both. (UninvitedCompany is both also, actually.) Newyorkbrad 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Threatening messages

Resolved

 – User Mehudson1 warned not threaten other editors with violence.

Mehudson1 (talk · contribs) needs at least a talking to about leaving threats of physical violence on people's talk pages: [34], [35]. I don't personally feel intimidated, but not all Wikipedians have skin as thick as mine. A review of the user's own talk page and the very low talk pages participation in the user's contributions demonstrates an uncommunicativeness, that suggests the user may only respond to other editors when a temper threshold has been crossed and the urge to lash out can no longer be resisted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Left a warning. Anything further and I'd be willing to block them (let me know or bring it back here). MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Rex Germanus calls me nationalist and idiot

As User:Future Perfect at Sunrise doesn't feel like taking on another of these disputes, maybe some other admin can have a look at this Admin talk page edit in which User:Rex Germanus states "User Matthead is, once again, looking for trouble ... because that idiot want to irritate people". Please have also a look at his recent (and numerous past) edit summaries in which he calls me "German nationalist" several times. He also continues to maintain User:Rex Germanus/Rex' nationalism scale where I just have added two links to show that an edit of mine and my talk page are meant. Also, Rex had filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Matthead. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No one, with a capable intellect, will deny you're a nationalist. If they do, they should look at your edits. You were inactive for quite a long time and then suddenly reappear ONLY to undo several of my edits, with no edit-summary whatsoever. That's looking for trouble (seeing this 'reporting' it would seem you're still looking). Those aren't personal attacks. Those are valid observations for everyone to check. Rex 19:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you want an admin to do? Play nice, and don't let it get under your skin. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Red Star Over China

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation and encouraged to utilize the talk page.

• Red Star Over China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

82.196.168.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made five reverts to the above article restoring a quote critical of the book. Asdie from edit warring and 3RR concerns, the quote itself doubles the size of the article giving undue weight to two people's criticism, and is also so long as to probably violate fair use. Anyone want to step in? – Steel 19:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I've blocked the IP for edit-warring and 3RR violations for 24 hours, and left a note asking him/her to discuss concerns over the proposed addition at the talk page once the block expires, rather than re-adding it. They seem relatively new (although IP addresses do change), so perhaps they'll come around. MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! – Steel 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Darwinek - Block review needed

Resolved

 – User unblocked by Phil. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Earlier today, established user (and former admin) Darwinek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 24 hours by Phil Boswell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for "edit-warring and incivility." Darwinek has requested an unblock review. I posted to Phil's talk for input, but he appears to have been offline since the block. Note that Darwinek is on civility parole per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. Posting here for comments and consensus on the unblock request. Newyorkbrad 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks resolved now, unblocked after apologizing. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked now, after he apologised nicely and promised not to be so silly again. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to object, I noticed this (the suggestion of unblocking) discussed on IRC so the outcome must be evil . --pgk 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(Guess I should clarify that I'm kidding just in case anyone takes it any other way). --pgk 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:SteakNShake

Resolved

 – I love it when one policy violation gets completely side-stepped by another. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This was previously dealt with at #Taken from WP:AIV above, but the primary issue was civility. I think that another look is now needed. This editor is being totally disruptive to the general relativity article, pushing edits that violate WP:NPOV by being strongly anti-relativity with a novel synthesis centered aroung the posibility that "space is virtual". Such a novel synthesis violates WP:NOR. A look at talk:general relativity will reveal the extent of this user's disruption. Especially telling is Talk:General_relativity#proposed_change_to_article, in which this user's idea for a change to the article was solidly shot down. Also at User_talk:SteakNShake#Response_on_the_.22edit_war.22_business is the remark that "These changes will stand, come hell or high water", which means that this editor is not interested in being part of a consensus.

BTW - I also advise that a CHECKUSER be done on this editor. He has "hit the ground running" in this campaign, which means that he probably has edited here before. So this may be a sockpuppet of a banned user. --EMS | Talk 20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: There is now a block on user:SteakNShake due to the user name being inappropriate (since it is the name of an organization). So this request is moot, for now. --EMS | Talk 22:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Christodouloug534

Christodouloug534 (talk · contribs) just recently posted an {{unblock-auto}} request, with the same IP address as Jack1956 (talk · contribs), who was blocked per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/86.152.81.41. Since their contributions seemed to have a lot in common, besides the IP address, it seemed to me that this indicated some more sockpuppetry, and I've blocked the account. Since this account has been editing since November 2006, I thought I should submit this particular block here for review. Sanity check, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say that User:Christodouloug534 is none other than Glenn A Christodoulou. Now, Christodouloug534 never contributed to that article, but he's contributed to or created articles about United Theological College Aberystwyth and its faculty, including Samuel Ifor Enoch, that Jack1956 and associated accounts have also contributed to. I'm inclined to think that these are all the same person, and I think the block is appropriate. Note, however, that I blocked Jack1956 and the other accounts in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/86.152.81.41, and so am already involved in this matter. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use problem tags reverted

User:Chaldean keeps removing tags identifying images which fail to meed the fair use critera without addressing the problem, in spite of the templates' clear instructions and mine. Could an administrator please ensure that images such as Image:Alnaftlogo.gif and Image:Ashurtv.JPG remain tagged so that Wikipedia's procedures may have their due course? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User WDS1/WDS2/WDS3/WhiteDragon Slayer

User constantly vandalises page, removes large section of text and removes discussions on White Dragon (England)

Now has taken to cutting and pasting large sections of text from www.icons.org.uk and www.whitedragonofengland.com - user not discussing the issues at hand and placing large amount of POV, unreferenced material onto page...some verging into the ridiculous.

Believe that 212.139.218.107, 82.153.29.85 and 80.41.15.107 is also the same person. WDS1/2 already banned.White43 22:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WDS3 (talk · contribs) already blocked, as well. I've reverted the page. Not sure yet if the IPs are the same person, but what I've checked so far doesn't necessarily suggest a link. If the IPs are socks, sprotection may be a good idea; it they're not socks, sprotection might be premature. Hm. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

he was creating duplicates as well earlier - I tagged one. --Fredrick day 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

On further review, 212.139.218.107 (talk · contribs) seems to be WDS, but the IP is dynamic. 80.41.15.107 (talk · contribs) was editing at similar times/page, and is on the same ISP, but I haven't found an exact contribution similarity, yet. 82.153.29.85 (talk · contribs) appears to be a static address, and has been blocked by Steel359. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Severe uncivility from TheClownPrinceofCrime

I have just warned the user for recent harrassment, see here. As such, the user continues to display ignorance and even trolls my talk page not once, see here, but twice. This all started on another user's talk page a few days ago, see here. Despite my warning there, see here, the person continued, see here. This wouldn't be the first time TheClownPrinceofCrime has been blocked for this; the user replaced their entire talk page of warnings and unblock requests with this comment. I suggest a sysops or administrator's firm action. Lord Sesshomaru

Yet, the trolling goes on and on in my talk page. See [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. Lord Sesshomaru

Blocked. Naconkantari 23:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Naconkantari blocked him: [42]. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Side note: Your edit warring on his page was not appropriate either. Users are allowed to remove comments from their own talk page. --OnoremDil 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing uncivil comments is edit warring? Lord Sesshomaru

Yes. "This is my page. If you don't like it I dont care. If I've offended you good. I just dont care." - This comment may be uncivil, but it's his talk page and it wasn't directed at anyone. The comments aren't so uncivil that you should be edit warring over them. --OnoremDil 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Understood. What about the first comment? Lord Sesshomaru

Ah, never mind. Lord Sesshomaru

Quack Quack?

Resolved

 – user blocked for unrelated vandalism and harassment ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone potentially think this user is a sock?

First two edits are "# 17:41, 3 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User:KingTee (←Created page with 'To leave me a message, please use my talk page. Thanks. ==Disambiguation== I'm a participant in WikiProject Disambiguation, pa...')

1. 17:40, 3 June 2007 (hist) (diff) The Black Wall Street Records (there are cited sources there, and there is no prefernce on wikipedia that there has to be pages for the members)

The Black Wall Street Records was semi-protected around that time due to an edit war. What kind of user's first edit is to join WikiProject Disambig?

Also, note he blanked his talkpage when the only edit was a welcome template: possible to make it more difficult for people to see when he was welcomed?

Appears to be a sock of one of these two IPs: 84.13.153.130 and 89.242.9.82 ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to say you are completely off base, but didn't about 80% of registered Wikipedia editors start off editing from IPs? We actually encourage people to register instead of using IPs [43]. Risker 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you WP:AGF for now. If the user does enter into a pattern of reverting the same part again and again, then it may be appropriate to go further. I would also suggest that a newly-created user is not a sockpuppet. IPs and users can be socks of other users, and one might think of anons changing IPs or accessing zombies, but without significant evidence I'd probably rule out an anon registering a user account as sockpuppetry. After all, even if it is the same person, they may change. 81.104.175.145 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you both are missing my point: Both this user, and the two IP's are editing the article at the same time, which has been engaged in an edit war. That's not encouraged at all, in fact it's expressly forbidden in all iterations of it. I'm not saying anything about IP's all being sockpuppets so I don't know where you're getting that. The registered account started editing significantly more once the article was semi-protected, hence my sockpuppet belief. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. He's now attempting to impersonate me, is vandalizing others user pages, and deleting AFD notices as well. see here. I've therefore blocked. Resolved.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Rash of reverts

• Kokkadichcholai massacre
• Chencholai bombing
• Tampalakamam massacre
• Ilayathambi Tharsini
• Mylanthanai massacre

All have been reverted number of times, no intention to talk mostly on whether Tamilnet is RS or not ? Thanks Taprobanus 01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How to blacklist a site?

Resolved

appropriate action was taken to blacklist the site. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to blacklist a site? Wrestlingobserver.com is currently being used by JB196 and his hundereds of socks. JB196 is a banned editor and daily creates socks just to reinsert links to this site. It would save the many of us spending hours reverting and blocking them if he could just not add them to the article at all? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see m:Talk:Spam blacklist Naconkantari 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to object to this, JB196 is employing another joe job and has done it in the past. He managed to get several websites related to wrestling blacklisted in the past just because he could. His WP:LTA abuse page covers his joe job MO and thus black listing the site is giving him what he wants. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, Lid, if you see the meta talk page list, only that one article is blacklisted, not all of wrestlingobserver (and we know Dave Meltzer won't move it around) SirFozzie 04:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass tagging by 66.93.209.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Could an admin please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.93.209.195 ? A user 66.93.209.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is tagging a lot of articles for speedy deletion as advertising, and I don't know whether this should be treated as vandalism or not. Some of the tagged articles might not survive AfD, but they don't seem to be eligible for speedy deletion. --Eastmain 02:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at a few random diffs. They all seemed to be pretty helpful actually, not all were tagging, he also removed spammy text from some articles. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Same here, looked at around 20 diffs, and all are fine by me. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 02:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

::he's also now been discussing what is wrong with the article on the actual article page. I've explained to him how to do it on the talk page. DGG 03:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

DGG, I demand that you point out the specific edit you are referring to. You'll find you can't, because I didn't do that. I do recall tagging an article that already had such commentary, however. I do not appreciate, at all, this false accusation against me. 66.93.209.195 03:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As I just said on your talk page, you are right and it was my mistake, and I came here to strike it out. You have identified the right article; checking, it was indeed the guy before you who scribbled on it, but didn't place the tag, you then placed the tag, and I hadn't correctly sorted out the two when I deleted the article. I have left a well-deserved appreciation for your work on your talk page--you are doing a good balance between marking speedy and deleting the spam portions, and I wish others understood this as well as you do. DGG 04:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs)

Can someone suggest a sensible place to report these personal attacks (in the edit summaries)?:

• [44]
• [45]
• [46]

I'm not sure that dispute resolution/mediation etc are the correct forum, but don't know where else to go. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but you should definitely not be re-posting warnings that the user has removed from his page. He has shown clearly that he prefers you not to keep posting there, so please take a hint. Especially don't post templated warnings. People do get testy at those. I agree the edit summaries aren't civil, but your posts are pretty provocative, too. Please give his page a rest. POTW isn't fair game just because he has a bit of a rep for being testy. That's emphatically not a good reason to keep poking at him. Bishonen | talk 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

P. S. And you're supposed to tell him you're discussing him here. That's one message on his page that would be appropriate. Bishonen | talk 22:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

Both Wikipedia:User page and Wikipedia:Vandalism allow a user to remove warnings from their own talk page. Phony Saint 00:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not realised, but can you show me where the above allow him to call me an idiot in doing so? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 12:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The above appears to be a response to this complaint to and about a user who has already found to have been using sock-puppets to harass me and blocked for incivility towards me. Andy Mabbett 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this is a question asking where best to report you for uncivil edit summaries. May I ask why you feel the need to bring up a non-proven sockputtetry case and an incorrect use of a block to justify yourself? I say again - pot, kettle, black, Pigsonthewing. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 12:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The sock-puppetry case was proven, as per the cited link; and the block was correct. My edit summaries were not uncivil. My name remains, Andy Mabbett 13:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

London Borough of Camden

Apologies for needing to bring this to your attention. There has been extensive editing at this page for about 4 days. The edits, made by anon ip and a named user have violated a number of policies. This has been pointed out on the talk page. An experienced user removed the edits, as extensive violation of WP:BIO, they have now been reverted by another anon IP. I believe that the page needs to be semi-protected, libels removed and a strong statement of policy made on the page. Thank you. Kbthompson 13:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• There appears to be two partisan individuals editing this article (one an anon ip the other a newly created account). The article seems to be used as a soapbox for their political views. I have reverted the additions once, but I am unwilling to get involved in reverting the re-addition. The talk page discussions are also rantish and partisan. Because of the extensive libelous material that is added, request semi protection. MRSC • Talk 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ha! I parked in Camden once, just off the high street, came back five minutes (literally) to find my car towed. And, ironically enough, I had been buying cannabis. Whilst what they're adding to that article seems a bit... one sided... as someone who goes there fairly regularly let me assure you that it *is* accurate... my little anecdote supporting the stance of these people. Best username yet 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It does make it seem like Camdem is the worst borough in the country. Even if they have sources it is disproportionate. We are really not interested in this stuff. Secretlondon 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed legal threats and personal attacks from both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London and Talk:London Borough of Camden. I strongly advise all editors to stick to the issues that are relevant to the writing of a verifiable encyclopaedia that is neutral and free from original research, namely the discussion of sources, sources, sources. Uncle G 10:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Mudaliar

I had been alerted about a few posters at Talk:Mudaliar. They were conversing in Tamil (my native language) and posting obscene messages and personal attacks. I have indef blocked the posters, User:Jack Heart, User:Zip600001, 58.185.249.2 and 84.73.20.236. Can another admin please review my actions if they were appropriate? Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I dealt with some vandals there last week... I don't read Tamil, but if those were indeed obscene messages (and I'll take your word for it) Jack Heart (talk · contribs) would appear to be a 1 off troll account. Zip600001 (talk · contribs) appears to have some actual edits but an established account doing the same sort of edits as IPs and a newly minted account would strongly suggest a sockpuppeteer. I'd only consider an unblock of that account if a checkuser cleared them of sockpuppetry. Otherwise I think your block is appropriate.--Isotope23 18:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked 203.101.45.171 too. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if socks of User:Mudaliar or User:Venki123 have appeared on that page? They edit warred a lot before ArbCom banned them in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123, and the writing of 'new accounts' on that talk page seems awfully familiar. Perhaps they should be blocked as well. The Behnam 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a closer look. Most of them have been blocked, except Baccarat (talk · contribs). Considering that Baccarat does the same edit warring on the same pages (Mudaliar, Segunthar, Devadasi) I think that we are looking at a reincarnation. The Behnam 16:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Murder of Red Cross workers in Sri Lanka

Iwazaki who has a history of WP:STALK ing my new articles is simply tagging and edit warring without discussing as to what his point is. He did the same on a new creation Duraiappa stadium mass grave. Thanks Taprobanus 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I could say the same thing about this edit [47]. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some users follow around other users' articles because they like to provide assistance in cleaning up articles, and in some cases they simply have the same interests. Of course, edit warring is bad and it seems that they've neglected to put in a reason for the change (using popups seems fine when you've got obvious nonsense or vandalism, but as your were the only edits up to that point it seems inadequate), but once that is cleared up you should be fine. --Edwin Herdman 22:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, another news story masquerading as an encyclopaedia article and resulting in an edit war. How unusual. Guy (Help!) 06:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Copt

Could someone please take a look at the last edits on the page Copt? I believe Impartiallaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 74.0.147.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are other socks of this banned user who used to make those same edits. — Zerida 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

He is certainly the one. However, the article lacks verifiability and RS. Wikipedia guidelines and policies are much more important than semi-protecting the article or chasing a banned user everytime they strike. I tried to fix what i am talking about (adding footnotes, removing blogs as references, etc...). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The article as a whole does not lack reliable sources, though it may need to be checked for POV. The main issue is with the flag which is why it remains tagged as lacking neutrality. I agree regarding policy, but it applies just as much to vandalism. Content disputes are not an excuse to vandalize or introduce false information into an article. I also agree with the changes, though short of deleting the flag altogether (and I don't see why it should be), I don't think that they will stop this user either. — Zerida 02:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert whenever he comes back. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Probable block evasion by Emnx

Emnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was recently blocked for sockpuppetry. Shiny brand-new SKRINE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to have taken up his cause. Details at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (2nd). Do I need to request another checkuser, or is this one obvious enough to act on without RFCU? IPSOS (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed the evidence, I have indef-blocked SKRINE2 (talk · contribs) as a fairly obvious sockpuppet of Emnx (talk · contribs). I've extended Emnx's block from 1 month to 3 months for ongoing sockpuppeteering. I have also closed the AfD started by the sockpuppet as speedy keep, given that the nomination was made by a sockpuppet of a blocked user (without prejudice to renomination by a user in good standing). Can I get some admin feedback about the appropriateness of these actions? MastCell ^Talk 15:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:SwatJester

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

---

Generic "rouge admin abuse". User violates policy, complains about enforcement thereof. Nothing to see here. Guy (Help!) 06:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

---

This is the second time I am here filing a seriosu complaint because I dont see the first one I made on the list here. Im here because a adminitstrator SwatJester has deleted the logo I uploaded for my article called Atala T LLC and claimed it was a fair use image which is false. I made sure the article is competley appropreate for wikipedia before I uploaded it to the site, Now the logo has been upthere for a while and if there was something wrong with it, my mentor Slavin would have mentioned it to me along time ago. Also, everything I try to create of fix on this site ends up being deleted and I do not think it if for the reasons they say it is, I think it is because some of these people abuse there powers on wikipedia and think that they can get away with doing so. Swat Jester also stated that I would be blocked for disruption. I have not disrupted anyone on wikipedia or even atepted to disrupt anyone. This is very upsetting and apalling to have to deal with constantly. I hope that we can fix this and make sure that this does not happen ever again. Thank you --Muriness 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You uploaded a fair use image and used it solely on a subpage. That's a violation of policy—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And the last time you filed a report here, you were told that you were violating non-free content policy. Why are you bringing this up again? Everything you upload that gets deleted is because it is not fit for being on Wikipedia. There is not some grand conspiracy against you. Your menter, Slavin, tried repeatedly to reason with you, but you were not listening. Can we just archive this section and move onwards, please? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For reference: your mentor Slavlin: "Muriness, I have been trying to help you with this as my time allows, but you don't seem to be making much of an effort here. I am thinking that you would benefit from participating with some other articles first. That might give you more of a feel for how the process needs to work. Also, I think you need to get a better feel for the software. Probably spend some time reading on Wikipedia:Introduction as well. Talk pages are pretty basic but you don't seem to be using them properly either. That is what is giving me the feeling that you don't have a good feel for the tools available." followed by "Actually, I followed the trail on it and I agree that you were being disrespectful. He does have the right and the duty to block people who are being disruptive" source ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

continued, statement of intent not to stop bringing up the issue. This is disruptive, and if he continues I will further block, and I've warned him as such, and recommended that he stop, and spend time reading up on image policy. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This administrator is abusing his powers and is blocking me claming that im being disruptive! I will contune to argue untill justice is served and he learns not to abuse people. --Muriness 02:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I prove my point: This is your last warning. Continue to state your intent to be disruptive, and you will be blocked from editing. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muriness"

You're in the wrong here, and continually complaining about it and posting here without seeking to understand what you did wrong is disruptive. --Haemo 02:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester should probably let someone else do the block if it becomes necessary, but he's quite correct in stating that Muriness is being disruptive. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Too late. I blocked for 48 hours. Continuous "you have new messages" comments demanding things from me were tiresome. Akhilleus (or anyone else), if you'd like to block review and modify it, please do, however I feel I've left more than enough warnings. At least 3. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I should've checked his block log before posting. Hopefully he'll take this opportunity to read the image policies. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also (posting this at userpage as well), he might be interested in joining IRC, more specifically the channel #wikipedia-en-help. The user seems to have some difficulties adjusting to using a Wiki, so getting help/coaching here might help somewhat. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 03:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"…blocking me claming that im being disruptive! I will contune to argue untill justice is served…"

We're having a problem at a very base level if you don't see the contradiction here. Refusing to let minor issues pass (especially when consensus is so clearly against you) is a manner of disruption. Please, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. (Note: You can click those two links to see the policies and guidelines I'm citing.) –Gunslinger47 03:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone else declined the unblock, then protected his page for abuse of the unblock tab. Now he's using Special:Emailuser to demand I unblock him. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble believing that this guy is going to be a productive contributor when his block expires. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

A wee bit of trolling

Resolved

130.108.192.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and the recently created 130.108.192.178I (talk · contribs) seem to be doing a bit of trolling (eg [48]). Anyone with a block button want to take a gander? Thanks --TeaDrinker 06:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, both are now blocked. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 06:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Paxsilvestris / User:Monophysite

This user has made a sinister stalking threat to Kbthompson and discouraged two established editors against editing again. This is response to attempts to remove unbalanced and libelous details from the London Borough of Camden. And a detailed legal threat too. Request block for trolling/threats. MRSC • Talk 07:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this request belongs at WP:AIV. Od Mishehu 07:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats are not vandalism, so no, this is the correct board to report it. The account User:Paxsilvestris has been indefinitely blocked for legal threats, with the provision that if he pledges on his talk page never to make such a threat again, it will be reduced from indefinite. The first two diffs you gave are not in themselves worthy of a block. Neil ╦ 08:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I added 'tone' and 'reference' tags to the article, and expressed my concern about it at WPLondon. I also tried to guide the editor on the talk page to writing about it in a way that is appropriate. The editor formerly known as User:Paxsilvestris / User:Monophysite is continuing to rant on 193.82.16.42 (User talk:193.82.16.42}. For my part, I would welcome him back, but he needs to learn what is appropriate for a wikipedia article and how to behave in civilised company. Kbthompson 09:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See #London Borough of Camden Uncle G 10:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page of article in active AfD

Resolved

^Khukri 09:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Blue_Prism has been deleted during an AfD - this page had information relevant to the AfD on it - Tiswas^(t) 08:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Went to fix it but it's already been restored by Khukri. Neil ╦ 09:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Urgent Protection needed

Resolved

[49]

Or at least semi. Show has just finished, and people are being idiots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.172.202.5 (talk)

semi protected for 48 hours - it was taking a hammering already. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, to get pages protected - the right place to make the request is: WP:RFPP. Od Mishehu 11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Harvest (band)

I'm not even sure where to begin with how to remove the excessive Images and audio files from this article since all of them are only being used on this one article, which for those of you without a calculator, it's about 90+ Fair Use Images and Audio Files. — Moe ε 12:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure fair use covers uploading every single song they did... --Fredrick day 12:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, they are only short bits of the songs, not the whole wongs, but this is still taking fair use beyond defendable limits (and I am a fair use supporter). My advice would be to remove all the ogg files aa excessive, keep the album covers. Fram 13:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The images have to go too. There's no commentary on those image at all in that article, none. Nick 13:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, applause goes to Jamielang77 (talk · contribs) for xyr fair use rationales. Uncle G 14:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• CSD I7: Bad justification given for fair use; this is decorative use in a list, not critical commentary. One or two lnks have gone red... Guy (Help!) 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The sound files have gone. But the fair use rationales that I was talking about are the ones such as Image:Harvest-reduced album cover.JPG. It has full sourcing, including the name of the copyright holder and date of copyright, and a rationale that includes the fact that the image cannot be used to make bootleg albums. Uncle G 15:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter how good the rationale is when the Images were still used for decoration. Maybe we could spare the Images if individual articles were created for every album, then that would be acceptable, but the way it was, was not applicable with WP:FU. — Moe ε 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think he was trying to advocate any different, just noting the person had been thorough, if only more were. That said the rationale isn't necessarily that good if it doesn't actually provide a rationale sufficient to keep using the image within the bounds of our policies. --pgk 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A request from a person whose article is on here, that I created

Hi, I believe you don't normally do this but Roger Webster a friend of mine, has asked for his article to be deleted. I believe that if you were to put it up for deletion review very few people if any would vote, as he is only notable in brass band, some classical and some psycological circles. I do however, believe he was notable enough in the first place to be put on wikipedia (which is why I created it!)

Anyway the main point of this was, he contacted me yesterday asking me to get his page deleted off wikipedia, partly due to the last vandalism. He did not know at that stage that I was the one who created it. Furthermore, he said that if possible he would like to track down the last user to edit it. That was before I reverted the vandalism, so the user was User:Roger The Girl Dodger whose account was obviously created just for that one edit. He told me that any admin who needed to speak to him are more than welcome to, and they can either contact him via the number I have (which would be emailed to you) or probably better, due to him living in the UK, via the contact section on his website. I am sure you can appreciate his frustration, as he found the vandalism shocking and could affect him if people take the information off here for programme notes. He also believes the person who vandalised is someone he knows due to the nature of some of the edits. I hope you can help. Any questions you have about this, please do not hesitate to ask me. Thanks for your time, Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 15:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey -- looking over the article to apprise myself of who Roger Webster is, I really don't think we can simply delete the article, he seems far more notable than borderline. Is his complaint that the article is vulnerable to vandalism? Or is the complaint about what is there in the article when it isn't vandalized? I'll add the page to my watchlist and try to keep an eye on it, and I'll make sure that account is blocked so it doesn't happen again. If the biography has sourcing or neutrality problems (I mean, other than the vandalized version), we can work on correcting that too. Mangojuice^talk 15:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If he believes the vandalism may have been done by someone who personally knows him, then that hits a bit too close to home. Mangojuice's offer is laudable (and downright nifty), but even more sensitivity may be in order. Wikipedia editors expect (and receive) a great deal of protection from 'wikistalkers', and other forms of online stalkers (you know what I'm talking about). If this has any connections to his 'real life', then I think it's only fair to grant him such a relatively minor protection. Bladestorm 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking anyone to do. Are you asking for the article to be protected (a request unlikely to be granted given the very low number of edits to the article)? Are you asking for the article to be deleted (a request you could likely have fulfilled as you are the only major contributor to the article and thus such a request would be a G7 speedy)? Are you asking for information about the editor who allegedly vandalized the article (another request that is very unlikely to be granted)? Or are you asking for something completely different like general advice and a list of options? --ElKevbo 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a few things, as I see it anyway. I notice the vandalism from the 'dodger' character stayed up there for quite some time before being discovered and reverted. In a biographical article of a living person, that is far from ideal. Also, in deference to Mr. Webster, I'll do a selective delete-and-restore to remove the vandalised version (I looked and it's not pleasant at all). As a regular WP:RPP admin, I'd not have any hesitation in semi-protecting this for a time to discourage that kind of vandalism which could give rise to serious problems for its subject - Alison ☺ 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• We can protect it, he can email me (use special:emailuser/JzG) or email info <at> wikimedia.org for the OTRS team. He is a great player, and the article is sourced, so deletion is probably less attractive than protection in this instance. More articles on notable brass players, please! Guy (Help!) 16:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• (ec x 2) I took the bold step of semi-protecting it for 2 weeks to deter the vandal from returning. I also deleted the vandalised version from the history. It's the least we can do for the man - Alison ☺ 16:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The larger issue is that these low-traffic biographical articles are WP:BLP disasters waiting to happen. The most obvious scenario is: editor creates article on marginally notable person; no one else cares; editor loses interest in WP and moves on; no one now watches article; article is vandalized and/or taken over by someone with an ax to grind; nobody notices; article is brought to subject's attention resulting in lawsuit etc. Granted we're not going to solve that here but this may be a case in point. Raymond Arritt 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. It happens & vandalism can "hang around" quite a long time, which is why I patrol Special:Unwatchedpages when I think of it. Anyone else do that / know about it? - Alison ☺ 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't know about it until you brought it up. It's an admin area, so I can't be of any assistance there right now. DarkAudit 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Anonimu accusations of Holocaust denial and general rudeness toward User:Biruitorul

Greetings,

A sad little drama has recently preoccupied a small corner of the Wiki and I would like to bring it to your attention. It all began when Anonimu started deleting any comments Biruitorul left on his talk page, often with rude edit summaries. The pertinent deletion came as most of the Romanians were all embroiled in an argument with Anonimu and a few others over whether or not Romania was actually "occupied" by the Soviet Union, or rather "liberated". Biruitorul left Anonimu a message stating (perhaps rather vehemently) his own opinion, which Anonimu promptly deleted, with the edit summary "deleted message of ultra-nationalist holodeni". After another editor had restored the comment and Anonimu had again deleted it, I restored it once more. The result was this revert. That's when I got irritated, and posted a NPA warning to him: [50]. As I was typing that message to him, the probable meaning of the word "holodeni" dawned on me--I had figured it was just a piece of Romanian foul language, but then realized: "holo"..."deni": "Holocaust denier." Anonimu has previously accused Biru of being a Holocaust denier (as well as an Iron Guard member, both of which are outrageous, slanderous and false accusations), so I wasn't surprised to see the same pathetic accusation pop up again. A quite stupid (though admittedly somewhat entertaining) discussion ensued on Anonimu's talk page over the exact meaning of the word "holodeni": Anonimu told us it was in the language of a common ethnic minority in Romania, which led us to surmise it was Lipovan Old Russian for "those who don't work, and thus starve" ("holod" = Ukrainian for "hunger"). The latest "theories" are that it Swahili. Of course, this is all nonsense since it is clear as day it meant "Holocaust denier." Additionally, Anonimu is still deleting anything Biruitorul writes on his talk page.

I'm sure others will agree with me that Holocaust denial is an extremely serious accusation and not one to be tossed around lightly. I hope someone can help us resolve this ugly situation. Regards, K. Lásztocska 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Editors are free to delete messages left on their talkpage and I would suggest not restoring comments that an editor removed from their own talkpage; it just makes the situation worse. The Diffs you provided containing WP:NPA are from several months ago, well past the time that Anonimu (talk · contribs) could reasonably be warned about this... while it is pretty clear that Anonimu (talk · contribs) is being a WP:DICK, I don't see any evidence of anything actionable at this time.--Isotope23 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Three of those four diffs are from a couple of days ago. Biruitorul 17:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to the edit where he explicitly called you holocaust denier, which was from 1-Apr. The removal diffs are nothing that require attention.--Isotope23 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack page (recreated)

I hope this is the right place for posting this...

About a year ago I was involved in a miniscule dispute with an anonymous IP, 68.101.64.76, who was repeatedly inserting a link to floridaeclipseclub.com in Mitsubishi Eclipse. Initial attempts to contact the user through their talk page and the article's talk page proved fruitless, until I eventually e-mailed the owner of the car club directly. Eventually, when no constructive progress was made, an outside mediator stepped in, assessed the situation and the IP ended up blocked. The whole storm in a teacup is recorded for posterity at User talk:DeLarge/Archive 1#Mitsubishi Eclipse linkspamming dispute with User:68.101.64.76, with fragments of it scattered on other talk pages.

I pretty much thought it was all in the past until last month. For reasons I can't remember I was googling my name, and came across the WP talkpage of User:Saeedc, who shares his username with the admin of the floridaeclipseclub.com site (where he's simply "Saeed"). It's an apparent single purpose account created to publish personal details about me -- at least, the most personal stuff he could find. I tagged it for speedy deletion with {{db-attack}},[51] and reverted similar content added to the old User talk:68.101.64.76 page by another anonymous IP and SPA, 72.196.126.185.[52]

It took me several months to even realise I was being attacked, but once bitten twice shy. So I watchlisted the two pages for repeat attacks, and they were recreated last night. Now, I don't want to make too big a deal out of this; my real name's not a big secret, he's got my IP wrong, and telling the world I'm obsessed with SETI and lousy at chess isn't exactly the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. However, from my perspective, on general principles the best thing would be:

• Speedy delete User:Saeedc and User talk:Saeedc, and block this account indefinitely;
• Restore User talk:68.101.64.76 to the last non-attack version, as I'd previously done; alternatively just delete it;
• Block the two anonymous IPs, which seem to be static, for a short period to prevent immediate reoccurrences.

Is that a proportionate and reasonable request? Regards, --DeLarge 16:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Seems fair to me. I have not yet blocked the IP, but the rest is done. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Very odd situation regarding requested deletion of articles

There are two articles on Masonic magazines started by User:Frumious Bander (who had a COI, having been a contributor to said magazines) which I felt were borderline nn. These are Masonic Magazine and Templar History Magazine. The publisher of those magazines, Stephen Dafoe, has since posted on Talk:Masonic Magazine that he would like both articles removed. However, Dafoe did not create the articles, nor was Frumious the only editor. I therefore see no clearcut case for CSD, and I'm not sure how the rights assertion works. Can someone look into this? MSJapan 17:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, just because he does not want them there does not mean they can be deleted. He is welcome to nominate them for afd though. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If by "look into this" you mean "delete for not asserting notability", then yes. --Spike Wilbury 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They have each been through afd though with no consensus closure. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They should have been speedied then. The keep comments that allowed the articles to exist a bit longer for improvement have resulted in exactly no improvement or any whisper of notability. No sense wasting any more time on them. --Spike Wilbury 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Avram Glazer claiming to be Avram Glazer

User:Avram Glazer claims to be Avram Glazer - looking at the users contributions, which I consider to be vandalism, I seriously doubt that claim. He should either offer proof that he is who he claims to be, or lacking that - I think there is some kind of policy against impersonating people, right? CharonX/talk 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked for violation of username guidelines (yes, you cannot impersonate people) and vandalism. --Golbez 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sock looking for a block

Resolved

 – Le sockpuppet, c'est fini.

Wah1954 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest Torrisholme/user:Graham Heavy sock. Could someone please block? Cheers! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vous etes le Weakest Link. Au revoir (mais non, je truste, adieu). Moreschi ^Talk 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ack! My universal translator is failing! ^(H) 17:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be, let's see: "You are the Weakest Link. Good bye." Not bad for a man who speaks no French. The Evil Spartan 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vous oubliez le derniere parte - "But not, I trust farewell (for ever). Ah, le sockblocking est magnifique, non? Moreschi ^Talk 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol! Merci beaucoups! Also people have been trying to deny the sockset recognition and not add sock tags to their user pages. -- Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected for 25 hours, thread removed. -N 16:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's currently a full scale edit war going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales between two anons. One is claiming to be a German Wikipedia admin, and another is claiming their privacy is being violated. I can't make much sense of it because it's all posted in German. I posted at WP:RFPP but nobody's gotten to it yet. -N 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi protected for 25 hours (because I pressed 5 instead of 4 and now don't feel like changing it). You should be able to just remove the squabbles now. Neil ╦ 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the thread entirely from the page. Carrying over disputes from another project to here is inappropriate. -N 16:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that, since this is where Jimmy's User page and Talk page are. However, I do believe that conversations in any language other than English are not appropriate. Corvus cornix 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that people still have beliefs like that. ExtraDry 22:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is another problem 2 topics below about use of a language other than English! Template anyone!Feddhicks 22:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Posting crap people can't understand involving disputes on another project is bad form. It has nothing to do with bad "beliefs". -N 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about "However, I do believe that conversations in any language other than English are not appropriate." ExtraDry 09:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he forgot to say (because he thought it was self-evident) "on en.wikipedia.org". -N 23:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot/Bookcover image deletion

I'm confused by BetacommandBot tagging Image:Evolution and the Theory of Games.jpg with the {{non-free use disputed}} template. The image was tagged as {{Non-free book cover}}, since it is used in an article Evolution and the Theory of Games, which discusses the book in question. Is this not sufficient to meet the fair use criteria? It doesn't seem to feel like any of the Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use. Pete.Hurd 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the second paragraph of the {{Non-free book cover}}; it begins with "To the uploader" in bold. --ElKevbo 08:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Good grief! Better just delete it so that Cambridge University Press doesn't sue for using an image of a cover of a book in the article about the book. Can't we just make a template for this, maybe call it {{Non-free book cover + the "used in article" rationale}}? Maybe Betacommand could write a bot to fill in the needed couple of fields of boiler plate. I'm not going to. I'm done with this. Pete.Hurd 08:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed that one. Personally, I believe this hamfisted new rule about a boilerplate not being sufficient to assert fair use is retarded and an appalling waste of everyone's time, but what do I know? Neil ╦ 09:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a new requirement, the fact that some think it is just demonstrates how lax we've been in enforcing it. The template has stated the requirement since 31 Jan 2006, the policy I would guess older than that. --pgk 09:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think most have only noticed it since it started being enforced by bots. Being in place for almost 2 years doesn't mean a rule is a good one (in my opinion, of course). Neil ╦ 09:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of us have enforced it when seen for quite some time, the bot is merely uncovering the rather large amount which have been missed. I personally find it much more of a problem that we have lots of people uploading images etc. without taking the time to understand the basic policies, adding tags to indicate a status without reading those tags (how do they know it really is the correct thing if they never bother to read it?). Realistically if people had taken the time to actually read and act on the tags message when they uploaded it, we'd have no problems now. (By act I mean either simply do it, or try and discuss/understand the requirement and if tweaks can be made). --pgk 10:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently very little (and yeah, you set yourself up for that one). --Cyde Weys 03:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

<deindent> Yeah, it's pretty stupid that boilerplates can't be used as FUR's, but it's policy anyway and it takes you what, 20 seconds to write up a FUR? —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

But if the boilerplates are not sufficient, why do we still have them? What is their point, other than luring the newer editors (or ones that have uploaded so many images they don't read the boilerplates any more) into uploading images that get deleted? It's as silly and as wasteful of everyone's times as allowing people to upload with templates that immediately tag the image for speedy deletion. Neil ╦ 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Their point is to record and display coherent and sufficient information on the license of the image, not its fair use rationale. There's are different boilerplates for that. Get with the program, man! --Spike Wilbury 17:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why have both? Why not have one boilerplate that accomplishes both requirements? Neil ╦ 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason Betacommand can't set up his bot to simply add the rationales on these - because it allegedly doesn't provide enough information. Yes, it's beyond asinine, but that's where paranoia gets you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The templates are there primarily for categorisation. I really think they should be abandoned and plain old categories used instead, since there seems to be an endless stream of users who get confused and think that the boilerplate is all they need to add to the description page. --bainer (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see no reason why templates couldn't be used for book covers that are used only on the article for the corresponding book. The reason, both legal and in terms of Wikipedia policy, for using Image:Greenmile.jpg on The Green Mile (novel) is no different than for using Image:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.jpg on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. (I picked these two at random; there are probably thousands of book covers that could all use identical rationales.) Rather than have people write their own rationales in each case - some of which may be badly written or flawed - why not use a boilerplate for {{Fair-use book cover for book article}}? The same also applies to album cover images to identify an album, video game boxes to identify that video game, and so forth. Yes, additional rationales would need to be added in some specific cases where it's used on other articles, but that is a minority. Right now we have a bunch of images that need fair use rationales and using something like this is the best possible way. *** Crotalus *** 01:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Second thing is though, you need to demonstrate why the useage is needed. Do we really need a picture of the book cover, does it do anymore then decorate the infobox 90% of the time? I mean for most uses, we could get away with free images of say, the author, or of fan art or something (as long as the fan art is free). It can and should be explained in each rational why we really need to use the image. Most of them are "so we can put it in an infobox". Infoboxes do not provide critical commentary of the book cover itself. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First editions are relevant. The cover of Dianetics is in Xenu for good reason, but not in Dianetics itself for some reason ... - David Gerard 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How on Earth would fan art be more encyclopedic? --GentlemanGhost 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You also have the need to help the user identify the item. This is important in the case of record covers (the best example being that album by Led Zeppelin) & business/product logos. Humans remember images better than words. Unfortunately, Betacommand's bot does not observe any exceptions, nor does Betacommand. -- llywrch 20:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Deletions and Harrassment by user Evrik

Archived. No cause for urgent admin intervention. Encouraged to follow dispute resolution. Another admin can reopen this if they feel there is more to be said. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

This user refuses to agree on simple matters and abide by the direction given by an Admin. We have tried DS before to no avail, hence I have come here. Examples:

• #1: [53] Removed category Fugitives. Ms. Arellano has an outstanding order for Deporation by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and they have publicly stated she is a "fugitive."

• #2: [54] Removed category Mexican Criminals. Ms. Arellano has been convicted of using a counterfeit Social Security card which is a felony in the United States.

• #3: [55] Restored deleted Mexican American link under "See Also". Ms. Arellano is a Mexican national only and does not fit the description of the category, only the looser defined project. Admin Will Beback specifically stated she does not belong to the category on the Talk page. Not sure why then a link to the Mexican American article is required since she fails the description set forth in the first line of that article, "citizens of the United States of Mexican descent." Seems misleading to readers not familiar with the Arellano article.

• #4: [56] Inserted category Mexican American Leaders. If, as per admin Will Beback Ms. Arellano does not fall under the category Mexican Americans, why then should she fall under the category Mexican American Leaders? Seems like basically trying to revert Mexican American category.

I mean if a Mexican national who has a felony conviction and hid in a church to avoid an outstanding warrant for deportation cannot be tagged with the categories "Mexican criminals" and "Fugitives," what does that really say about the intellectual integrity of Wikipedia?

Furthermore, Admin Will Beback clearly directed that Ms. Arellano does not fall under the category Mexican Americans. User Evrik is basically trying to get around the spirit if not the letter of that admin's wording.

Additionally, user Evrik has repeatedly used the "highly discouraged" Single Purpose Account tag after my asking him several times not to do so. I have explained myself to him but he is unwilling to bend. I consider this a personal attack and harrassment and ask that the article be reverted to my last revision, user Evrik be blocked and that he be made to delete the SPA tags anywhere he has placed them on me. Sorry to dump all this here but frankly, I don't know what else to do :-( 18:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordPathogen (talk • contribs).

Hmmm... with a brief glance at your history, I see edit-warring, a couple of recent 3RR blocks, and the clear use of sockpuppetry to continue edit-warring and evade 3RR. Your complaints appear to boil down to a content dispute, and I'd recommend you take it back to the article talk pages, without further edit-warring, sockpuppetry, etc. Alternately, you can pursue dispute resolution. I do agree that Template:Spa shouldn't be used in this context, and I'll ask Evrik not to do so. But there's nothing requiring immediate administrative intervention here. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there has been edit warring. Users Ramsey2006 and Evrik frequently tag-team on this article. Other users have been blocked as well here. I have tried to avoid edit wars since my second 3RR which is evident by my postings on the 3RR notice board recently. As for sock puppetry, I still dispute that but nothing I can do about it. I firmly believe that this is far more than a simple content dispute. Evrik seems very personally involved. As I have stated, we have tried DS before to no avail. I requested a Third Opinion. I made a Request for Comments. No effect. Someone who is convicted of a felony is a criminal. How can that be up for dispute and if it is, how do you resolve something so fundamental? Finally, he is ignoring the ruling by another Admin. Why is that allowed to stand? Thanks LordPathogen 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is geting increasingly out of control: "Don't think I didn't notice that you tried to report me for 3RR (and had to be shown what the real policy was." Some assistance would be appreciated. I have tried all the relevent options I can think of... 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordPathogen (talk • contribs).

Umm... looking at that talk page, I see you harassing User:Evrik (about the Wikimedia elections) and engaging in incvility and personal attacks. I don't see the diff you cite above as particularly "out of control". You're not helping your case. I'd suggest pursuing the steps outlined in dispute resolution; this isn't the complaints department and I don't see that User:Evrik has done anything actionable. I'll ask him to stop using the SPA template. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User Evrik created a whole section on the talk page devoted to me and that is not harrassment? Please also note that 1. I created my header after he did his and 2. I removed his name when he stated it was a personal attack. LordPathogen 19:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just checking in. --evrik ^(talk) 19:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be going well. ^(H) 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So what does this mean, the fix was in? LordPathogen 20:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just for the record, if you look at this summary:

— LordPathogen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

you'll see almost no edits outside Elvira Arellano. You'll also see that all the other edits are related to Elvira Arellano (except maybe for unsuccessfully reporting me for 3RR). LordPathogen is being disruptive and using the process to disrupt the article. --evrik ^(talk) 20:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, you will see that Evrik is still ignoring your request since he user the SPA tag even here... And with editors like Evrik, it is little wonder I have time for other articles, now is it? ;-) And as for using the process, kindly note it is I, not you Evrik, who have recently asked for a Request for Comments... I ask you MastCell to read the edits I made adding data from the legal brief and decide for yourself if they are "disruptive" or is there perhaps someone who shall not be named that is gaming the system here...LordPathogen 20:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're adding things to the record

This little gem as emailed to me last week while LP was blocked:

email removed ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

--evrik ^(talk) 21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No apologies. I think both these editors Ramsey2006 and Evrik are extreme POV and for some reason, this one in particular is treated with kid gloves by Administrators. I guess because he must be high up the wiki food chain. I don't think that is good for Wikipedia and frankly, it is frustrating as my email surely depicts. The email was also not a secret. No one emails secrets... LordPathogen 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...that looks virtually identical to the email that I got from User:LordPathogen. This whole thing is getting rather annoying.--Ramsey2006 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• Is it appropriate for private emails to be posted here? If not, the above should be removed. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

The recent spate of BJAODN deletions got me thinking. If copy-and-paste moves violate the attribution requirement of the GFDL, and BJAODN violates the GFDL, doesn't using subst on a template also violate the GFDL? After all, it just shows the text as if it had been copied and pasted, with no attribution. *** Crotalus *** 02:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Archives of stuff like AN/I and user talk pages are also technically GFDL violations by the logic that got BAJODN deleted, since they're accomplished just by copy and pasting. --W.marsh 02:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but with talk page archives, the comments are generally signed and dated, and the antecedent diffs are preserved in the history of the main talk page. As for template substitution, I guess you could say that templates aren't content, rather they are shortcuts used for navigation, categorization and maintenance, so if you write {{subst:whatever}} it's as if you bothered to write the entire code. There are a few templates, such as Prod, which indicate the antecedent in the subst'ed code. That being said, there will always be examples where Wikipedia technically violates the GFDL. Perfection is impossible. I think the Wikimedia Foundation will shut down the site for lack of funds before they complain about the GFDL compliance of template substitution. But it's an interesting topic to think about. Placeholder account 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The signing provides the attribution needed to be in compliance with the GFDL.-M^ask? 05:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How exactly do signatures "Preserve the section Entitled "History""? Kotepho 05:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It shows exactly when and who made a particular edit to the page. For example, Kotepho an edit here on 05:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC), and Ryulong is making an edit here at 05:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC) —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing in the GFDL about "preserving a section entitled history". All there is in the GFDL is a requirement that work is attributed, and signatures on every comment are the perfect way to accomplish that. --Cyde Weys 05:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you eat paint chips as a kid? Kotepho 05:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.

Sigs do exactly that. the new authors, and date of the publishing of that copy, and the statement of modification (the comment). The section marked as historical is split into 2, one for the history of that copy, in the history tab, and one for the publishing history, contained in the work itself. -M^ask? 05:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There can only be one section entitled History and you can't just put it somewhere else and call something else History. Kotepho 06:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A section "Entitled XYZ" means a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely XYZ or contains XYZ in parentheses following text that translates XYZ in another language. (Here XYZ stands for a specific section name mentioned below, such as "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", "Endorsements", or "History".) To "Preserve the Title" of such a section when you modify the Document means that it remains a section "Entitled XYZ" according to this definition.

Sure you can, we contain an invariant section on history, the history of that particular copy. We contain the history of the overall work in the comments them selves. It makes sense within the construct of the GFDL. -M^ask? 06:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The History section is not an invariant section, but an append only section essentially. You can add to it, but you can't change anything else and you certainly cannot remove it or call it something else and make a new one. That would make the requirement to keep it useless and the only real attribution left would be the copyright notices (which you also can only add to and not remove). One could make the argument that signatures might qualify under a board definition of the spirit of the GFDL, but it is certainly, explicitly against the letter. Kotepho 06:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this comment had two parts, you should've kept them together, but since you responded to the more relevant portion below, Im assuming you realize how dumb this argument is, considering I was being intentionally absurdist.-M^ask? 07:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(just realized since you still are replying, you may not have gotten it. Im being sarcastic, mostly because of the over-the-top 'did you eat paintchips?' line. The use of invariant sections is widely viewed by the FSF themselves as a mistake, and is being fixed in the next version of the GFDL)-M^ask? 06:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Given all of the stupid and clearly wrong statements about the GFDL (such as the one above where I quote from it and someone says it says nothing of the sort) I have seen in the last week it has made it abundantly clear to me that probably a half dozen people have actually read the GFDL and not teal deer'd it, it is impossible to discern someone being sarcastic or trolling versus a serious statement (c.f. arguments involving creationism and conservatism online). Kotepho 06:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Citizendium in compliance with the attribution requirements? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• No. Citizendium does not transwikify articles correctly. Uncle G 09:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Neither does Answers.com or any other mirror I can think of... so they are in good company. (The one that comes to mind as being the closest to correct is Wikitruth.) Kotepho 09:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Citizendium is in bad company. That bad company includes Wikitruth, which is nowhere near being correctly compliant with the GFDL. Good company, in stark contrast, would be the likes of Totally Explained or the Unification Encyclopedia Project. Uncle G 12:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Wikitruth provides page histories in much the same way we deal with transwiking (which is not perfect), not just links. They seem to be missing the talk page histories, and the histories of a few templates they copied from Wikipedia or copy of the GFDL that I saw. If I say TELL THE WIKITRUTH, do you think they will fix these issues to fufill whatever requirements needed to meet 'High' in this list? I would note that I did not say that wikitruth was perfect, and neither of the sites you use as an example are complying with the GFDL either (links to history don't cut it). Kotepho 13:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting back on track, I'm not sure if most of our templates would qualify for a copyright, as many of them are just basic wikitable formatting. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Many of them contain significant prose (at least the user warning ones that are regular subst'd). Even non-subst'd templates and images present serious problems (see the section "5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS"). Putting a GFDL template and image in an article undoubtably fails under this section. Kotepho 06:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

One possible solution would be to require that template edits be released into the public domain, or using some type of free license that doesn't require attribution. Images wouldn't be an issue since they are always linked by filename to their description page. I'm simply puzzled as to why various other practices apparently violate the GFDL, but using subst on templates does not, since it seems functionally identical. *** Crotalus *** 07:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

subst: is a problem, but if you go with a board spirit idea of the GFDL it can be covered with including an HTML comment that says where it is from (many of them do this). It is a little late to make the template namespace public domain (especially given that many of them started before there was a template namespace). Some of the MediaWiki namespace is a complete mess too. Starting out as GPL and then edited and released under the GFDL (wtf? you can't do that!) and then distributed without any attribution (think .css/.js, blockedtext). All of this without getting into the complete lack of compliance with 4.A-C too. Kotepho 07:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, we should have written a better free content license before we started? --tjstrf talk 07:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of other better free content licenses if you ask me (MIT/two or three clause BSD/ISC/etc... but I know I'm in the minority there), but better software, forethought, and reading the licenses would have certainly helped. Kotepho 07:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

When Wikipedia was started, the GFDL was the only free-content license suitable for documents. The licenses you cite are designed around the needs of software, not of text. --Carnildo 08:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Which parts exactly of the GFDL which make it 'suitable for documents' does Wikipedia use?　We don't use cover texts, endorsements, acknoweldgements for example. Documentation is not that different from software. Kotepho 09:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For a lot of stuff the only attribution is an edit summary, or a note on the talk page, but is that enough? I would think it would be, since the edit history is also were we look for direct contributions, and the talk page is, well, the talk page, a basic "notes" document attached to each article. -- Ned Scott 19:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another thought. A lot of templates do insert text like "this was added from Template:blah blah" as a hidden note, but how feasible/practical would it be to make such a hidden note appear automatically whenever a template is subst'ed? -- Ned Scott 20:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I just posted at VP/A asking about article splitting and GFDL. Specifically, what is required in terms of attributions? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling by User:71.235.81.39

Hello, user User:71.235.81.39 has a history of Trolling talk pages relating to Boston, Connecticut or New England in general. He leaves comments such as this one 1, refering to anything to which he disagrees with as propaganda.

Other examples of this are: 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Plus others which I don't have time to lists.

He has been warned about these postings many times on his Talk Page, but he seems to ignore them. I recently posted this warning on his talk page. He then responded with this message on my user page.

Since these posting by User:71.235.81.39, are a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT, I would like an administrator to consider blocking this user.

Thanks For Your Time: BH (Talk) 03:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Telling the truth with PROOF in TALK pages should be no problem. That is what they are there for. Just because someone may not like the facts that I write does not mean that they should have the right to harass and delete my words simply because it goes against their POV propaganda. This guy and two others have been on my case. Is this site about their thoughts or everyone's? Some so-called editors need to be banned. The site needs to stop letting editors pick the topic because they clearly pick the topic with the thoughts and actions of spreading their vision of the topic. People like me only come to correct the BS with the truth. Do you want a site full of lies of the truth?--71.235.81.39 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The above statement is a near perfect match of the tone the user uses to express his POV. It is also a piece of irrefutable evidence against its author. BH (Talk) 04:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia disruptive editing extinguisher #1: Verifiability not truth. —Kurykh 04:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. BH (Talk) 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Accusing him of trolling only inflames the dispute. Please remember wikipedia:civility. That said, Kurykh is correct: debating truth on talk pages isn't helpful - just back up statements in articles with verifiable sources. Rhobite 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It means that Wikipedia is here to publish verifiable facts that have been written by others, not to stand as a light against the darkness, the one source of shining truth. In other words, if 71.* can come up with independently-published sources that state New England doesn't exist and that there is a pro-Boston bias out there, then we can include his info. If he does not have sources to that effect, we cannot. Meanwhile, there are a lot of sources that he feels are propaganda, which in this case is tough cookies for him. It's happened to me, too. --Masamage ♫ 04:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that he was warned not to refer anyone as a propagandist (1) here, or he would be blocked for violating WP:CIVIL. And he has never brought up any sources other than using a weather map centered on NYC. BH (Talk) 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I generally confirm Black Harry's account and complaints. Though I believe the anonymous user may have intended contributions rather than disruption for its own sake, the result of all discussions with him have been replies of a personal inflammatory nature rather than calmly articulated reasoning with sources. I advised user [57] that continuing to post on indignant anger would not be prudent, and that any well-reasoned civil remarks would be considered and discussed by his putative antagonists. This did not aid the situation.--Loodog 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And of course, if the diffs didn't prove the point that this user has been making uncivil, disruptive comments to advance his agenda, the user actually posted a comment on this thread, in which he accuses us (me and Loodog) of writing "POV propoganda". He then suggests that "Some so-called editors need to be banned". not blocked mind you, but banned by the wikimedia foundation and/or Jimbo Wales himself. Then, he finishes his defense of his actions by saying "People like me (him) only come to correct the BS with the truth. Do you want a site full of lies of the truth? (sic)". What else do you need for proof? BH (Talk) 05:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See, this is an example of lies. I did not submit a weather map centered around NYC, I submitted a local news WEBSITE that deals with NY/NJ/CT. This shows and PROVES that CT is not into this NEw England thing as purported in the article. CT is a part of the NY/NJ/CT Tri-state area which that site is proof of. I don't have to prove that CT is not New England, I am just proving that CT is in the NYC area and NOT a part of this Boston/New England frame of thought. The New England article would lead a reader to think that CT is like those others state in seeing Boston as it's capital and making readers believe or think that CT has the same culture, geography and speech as those states. It also implies that New England means easy transportation between states and that every state is connected to Boston and receives their media which is totally not true for CT. In that regard, we get everything New York as we should being so close to it. Those New England state love Boston because it is the only major city up there. Here in CT, we are right next to NY and a lot closer, so why would you think that we would have Boston on our minds?

Here is the link that they claim is just a 'weather map.' [58], [59]. These show how WE view and see ourselves. Not that Boston and New England are no where to be found...--71.235.81.39 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's people like you that cause problems. If you don't like what I write - tough! Don't harass me and try to get me blocked just because my truths do not fit your fiction. The fact that you have to try so hard to convince others goes to show your bias and desperation to stop the truth about this New England/Boston propaganda.--71.235.81.39 17:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the sacred truth that Wikipedia must protect! Sorry, we don't do that. We don't document truth, we document facts. —Kurykh 00:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A local weather map for southwest CT is obviously going to venture into NY and NJ and stay away from MA, since... well... they're closer to southwest CT. It says nothing about the way "the people identify with Boston." I could refute your point with a map of northeast CT that includes much of RI and MA while excluding NY. It would be pointless. You need sources, not your opinions, and refrain from saying "we" and meaning "all of southeast CT" -- because you can only speak for yourself. Leebo ^T/C 01:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to carry the argument into this page, which I don't think is the intention of ANI, I feel obliged to cite merriam-webster's definition. The editor did not accept the dictionary as true enough, thinking that dictionaries aren't updated. I told him that I cannot argue with someone who won't accept the dictionary because all rules are off and you can redefine any word to mean whatever supports your argument. Now, assuming editor has understood Kurykh's statements concerning wikipedia, I see no further reason to continue this intervention.--Loodog 02:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Request "speedy keep" for Steve Gilliard

Resolved

I am arguing for a speedy keep for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gilliard. None of the four justifications for speedy keep are applicable here, so, yes, this is a bold request. Steve Gilliard passed away on June 2nd and a page was created the same day (not by me). User:Naconkantari, a respected and diligent admins, deleted the page. Upon request, he restored the article and sent it to AfD (see here). My concern is this does not follow wp guidelines, which I quote:

Before nominating an article for AFD, please ... first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. Notability is not subjective. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

User:Naconkantari explanation for the AfD is: "Non-notable blogger" and that is all. I have twice queried the admins about this matter with no response (see here). Today, Sarah Wheaton of the New York Time's "The Caucus" described Gilliard "a blogger’s blogger who had the attention of some of the most influential on the scene, and he was also considered to be one of its most important black voices."[60] The AfD includes copious evidence of his significance. So, why not wait the five days until the inevitable "keep" decision? Isn't the existence of an AfD template harmless? In this case, I disagree. First, this page will get a lot of traffic now due to his death and the mention in the NYT (apparently, it is possible that even a NYT obit will be written [61]). Having this template on the page serves to deligitimize Gilliard. Secondly, it can't help but cool the interests of editors working under this cloud. Although this harm may not be great, in light of the (arguably) incorrect procedure for including the article in AfD when using the notability template was the better alternative, I am requesting that this matter be settled now. I would be so bold as to do this myself ("Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps"), I have voted for keep, so I have a conflict of interest.  ∴ Therefore  talk   06:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No opinion on the substance of the matter, but checking the bot counter, the "score" is 39 keeps versus 5 deletes. I know it's not a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I have never seen an article deleted against such a lopsided consensus. You have nothing to worry about. Placeholder account 07:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean it will get WP:SNOWBALLed though. nadav (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If I were to close, I would probably strike out a good half of the "keeps" for being from new visitors to Wikipedia (it is strange how so many new user's first edit is to an AFD), but even then, it's not getting deleted. Neil ╦ 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In the end I think this will be a Keep, but in the interim the AfD is just a forum for vitriol and User:Naconkantari-bashing. A speedy keep resolution of the AfD will (hopefully) lead to editors' constructive work on the Steve Gilliard article, instead of just talking about it. Lipsticked Pig 08:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

either a lot of socks or meatpuppets in that AFD. I wouldn't use speedy in such a case. --Fredrick day 09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Looks to me as if someone you like died, his fans dashed over to Wikipedia to create a memorial and you don't like the fact that this was not viewed with universal approval. Fie on you, sir. Delegitimize my arse. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your considered, thoughtful opinions on this matter and your characterization of my motives. To clarify, I did not know of Gilliard until I read about his death and, as is my habit, I came to wp to find out further details. I was surprised that there was an AfD after an immediate delete. I made no attack on Biruitorul. I did point out that after he SPAed many posters (some with months of edits) that he neglected to do the same to the deletes -- two of which were single or dual edits. A fair observation, I thought. And I apologize if, as a "normal user", I pointed out that the admins didn't follow the proper wp stated guidelines that required research and demonstration of which before reflexively deleting a page. The proper procedures was to use the notable template. My intent was not to step on anyone's authority.  ∴ Therefore  talk   19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just as a general observation, it's sometimes easiest to create/update an article right after the death of the article's subject, since the subject will receive media attention and retrospective coverage as a result (which can then be used to expand/source). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Kudos to Biruitorul for remaining civil in that discussion in the face of personal attacks from -asx- (talk · contribs) and Milton Stanley (talk · contribs), both of whom have been around long enough that they should know better. The latter's repeated pointing to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks are especially ironic, not least because they follow perfectly civil comments that aren't personal in any way, and because of this edit.

  Kudos to Lipsticked Pig, too.

  And yes, the evidence of a swarm of new users suddenly appearing in order to try to stuff the ballot, when there is no ballot to stuff, and without rationales that have any foundation at all in our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, when those are the only rationales that would actually make a case that holds water, abounds in that discussion. The holders of the new accounts (and, indeed, several editors of long standing whose rationales are also not based in policy) would do well to learn from Capitalistroadster's contribution to the discussion. Uncle G 13:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• AFD closed as Keep. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Requesting an IP Ban on 70.89.228.65

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.89.228.65

If you take a look at his "edits" you'll find that he's nothing more than a repeat vandal on Wikipedia. His vadalism has ranged from the page on Nathaniel Hawthorne in 2005 all the way to his most recent "work" on the SOCOM: Confrontation page--both and all pages in between have been re-edited and fixed.

As a frequent user and editing member of Wikipedia, I would highly advise the IP Ban of this individual. --Hisashi 0080 10:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Borg Queen had blocked for a week - considering the IP address has registered nothing but vandalism to the same articles, over and over, for three years(!), I have extended this, and softblocked it for six months. Neil ╦ 10:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a school. a block summary like no useful edits in three years ignores the fact that we don't know how many good registered users might edit from there. I have noted {{schoolblock}} on the talk page. Thatcher131 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, that is why I softblocked it. Neil ╦ 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least in the checkuser time frame, the answer is zero. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There's reason to ask the Foundation to ask the school to investigate. I doubt all the kids sitting at the same workstation for 3 years only vandalise.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As a member of the counter-vandalism team, you'd be surprised. 80-90% of what comes from schools is pure WP:GAY vandalism. The Evil Spartan 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hello can an admin talk to me on my page please, i need a little assistance with dealing with some insecure idiot strutting about thinking hes right when infact he is not... I dont want to explain here becuase its too long. (trust me)Aarandir 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please... can i have some help... can anyone spare me minute or two??Aarandir 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific, because I can't find any "insecure idiots" on your talk page. --Masamage ♫ 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Provide diffs. We're not here to look for problems, we're here to take care of problems when they are reported to us (and they warrant administrator intervention). If you can't be bothered to inform us of why you need assistance, why should we bother? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You've devoted an entire section to arguments that you have won, and call others morons. Um... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out this piece of work, and this. --Masamage ♫ 00:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Aarandir is an incivil troll whose main purpose here apparently is to win debates. It has been explained to him by several editors that he may not add original research to articles, however amusing it may be. His proclamation on his userpage that "I know admins on wikipedia are extremely stingent, stubborn and pedantic in upholding some rather pointless rules, which leads to conflict with me who will challenge such rules," and then calling those who point out the rules insecure, childish, morons, idiots and twats. If I was not involved (I am the butt of much of his of wrath), I'd block him pronto. -Ezeu 00:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in that same situation. If he had said to anyone else what he said to me (linked above) it'd be at most one warning before blocking. As it is, I don't know what to do. --Masamage ♫ 00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ipaat

User:Ipaat has uploaded a number of images to WP and has a gallery of his uploads on his user page. Trouble is, several of them are fair use images which cannot be used on user pages pursuant to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions. The user was warned about this one hundred times prior to my involvement -- 98 by a bot and twice by User:Jay32183 here and here. I came across the page while I was tagging images and noted that nonfree images were still present. In light of all the warnings, I removed the entire image gallery with a note on the user's talk page that the gallery could be restored as long as the fair use images were not included. The user restored the entire gallery, including fair use images. We went one more round of reverts, so I'm bringing it here. I suspect that this may be a language problem, as the user appears to be a native speaker of Russian with only basic English ability. Perhaps someone can get through to him in Russian? In any event, nonfree images cannot remain on the user page. Thanks! --Butseriouslyfolks 17:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not a language problem: look at contributions and user page. He understands fine, he's just obstinate. Quite frankly, this user needs to be blocked for a short time: he's had warning aplenty. The Evil Spartan 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ezhiki has explained things to him in Russian. We'll see now whether he's going to play fair. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox impersonating admin / admin powers

Resolved

As can be seen from the big red marker here, SqueakBox impersonated an administrator on my talk page, or at least deluded himself as to having administrative powers (which his long career should have convinced him was not true).

I suggest that some action is taken against this user, for his generally threatening, rude and disruptive behaviour (or at the very least, for this incident alone) (f a b i a n) 17:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhh...that would be him giving you a vandalism warning which any user can give. Only an administrator can block you, but SqueakBox can warn you for vandalism and then report you to an admin if you continue. Nothing to see here against SqueakBox but your own edits do seem to warrant administrative investigation. Metros 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh how beautiful: Fabian appears to be a pro-pedophilia edit-warrior. The Evil Spartan 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does SqueakBox know that I will be blocked, and how exactly do you justify your apparent agreement with him, that my edits were vandalism? You might like to check out WP:VAN, which clearly states that moving content to more appropriate locations is not vandalism (f a b i a n) 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Squeakbox knows the policies under which you will find yourself blocked under if you don't head his warnings. He know what he is talking about, so you should listen. ^(H) 18:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with H because you are a step or two away from the wrong side of a lengthy disruption block. Uhh, nevermind, he was just blocked as I wa typing that. Metros 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This trolling account has been blocked indefinitely (not by me). Endorse block, obvious socking troll, no need to waste more tears. (Beside, I just love it when the trolls announce themselves on ANI. Classy). Moreschi ^Talk 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. ^(H) 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually have a template on my talk page making clear I am not an admin, SqueakBox 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block by User:El C. Good call. Pro-pedophilia POV-pushing / filing vexatious 3RR & ANI reports / WP:SPA / censoring of talk page comments, etc, etc - Alison ☺ 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ditto. This guy is obviously some banned editor returning to troll. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess SqueakBox's prediction that he would be blocked was accurate. Amazing! SqueakBox, will I ever find true love? Will a Democrat win the US presidency? Who puked the hairball on my floor? -FisherQueen (Talk)

That last one was me. Kitty 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

lol :-) FloNight 18:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It could have been User:White Cat, you know? Kitty shouldn't be just taking responsibility for everything. (: —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want it on the record that I also endorse this block. Good call, I would have done it if I had seen this earlier.--Jersey Devil 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that was a interesting (and humorous) read. *chuckle* (endorse block, by the way) Nishkid64 (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Im with nishkid. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User uploading PD images from NASA as PD-self

Resolved

User:1981willy is uploading NASA images (which are public domain, or sometimes attribution) licensed as {{pd-self}} I told him to knock it off -- but this is a weird scenario I'm not sure exactly how to handle, so I'm soliciting advice. WilyD 18:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fix the tag and warn him not to do it again, and that he's making a mess for others to clean up? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• What Night Gyr said. Point him to Template:PD-USGov-NASA; the complete list of image tags might also be helpful. If he keeps doing it, sterner warnings might be required. If stern warnings fail to get the point across, then we talk about blocking. Taking credit for public domain material isn't a copyright violation, but it is plagiarism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, there are a bunch and I can't be sure of all the sources (if they're pic of the day or something, they may actually be copyrighted). WilyD 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think there's only one solution, and it requires a lot of work unfortunately. Check all the user's uploads for sources and copyright. IME, if one misattributed image is caught, then it should be treated as if all the images are misattributed, just to be very careful. —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I've already tracked down several that were copyright violations - most of the rest I know to be NASA public domain releases (though I don't have links), one I'm still not sure about. Arg. WilyD 19:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Fuck, that was a lot of work. Half a dozen turned out to be copyvios, half a dozen were NASA images, which are now correctly tagged. WilyD 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks against me regarding Brianna Rieffel article

Yesterday, I got into a real heated debate with several editors here in regards to an article I wrote about singer Brianna Rieffel. It started out civil, then quickly escalated into a big argument. They then began to personally attack me, Brianna and her mom Sharon. They made me out to be an idiot and have (and will) come up with every excuse in the book to discredit me. I believed that I followed all the rules, policies and criteria in creating this article and the one about the Country Tonite Theatre. I used, in my personal opinion, reliable sources and even got help in doing it. Yet, these people think otherwise.

I worked with Nikki311 to cleanup the Nora Greenwald article up after Nora herself asked me if I could take some stuff out that she didn't want there. The article was cleaned up and we worked everything out in a civil manner.

These are the people to watch out for: SarekOfVulcan (who started this whole mess), Ravenswing, Fredrick day, NawlinWiki, and Daniel J. Leivick. All of whom personally attacked me, Brianna and her mom (who's Breezee95 which I helped her with).

Closenplay and ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ tried to be civil about it, too. I should've listen to him/her. But everyone else just called me names like "big mouth" and "big baby" which totally goes against the civility rules here at Wikipedia. To view this heated argument, click on the link below. Yes, I even got a little angry because I did take it personally as did her mom, but I was only sticking up for her when she got disrespected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brianna_Rieffel_(second_nomination)

I ask that you either reprimand or banned these editors from Wikipedia. But I will live with whatever decision you make. I've been attacked long enough and it's time for it to stop. Summers95926 18:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you have a personal axe to grind over this girl and Wikipedia. There are policies that Wikipedia follows. Please review them. Corvus cornix 18:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And Mike Summers appears to be the webmaster for Brianna Rieffel's website, which makes all of his comments (very incivil comments, to be sure) WP:COI violations. Corvus cornix 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I will review the policies again, but this about me being attacked personally. Summers95926 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see very little in way of personal attacks directed against you, but very many directed from you at other editors. --Haemo 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Point out some more clear examples. So far all I see is an anonymous user calling you a "big baby"... Sasquatch t|c 19:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the AfD, I see nothing that would qualify as a personal attack. I do notice some other editors getting a little short with you, probably because of your consistantly uncivil behavior and your obvious conflict of interest. Is there something specific you have in mind that we aren't seeing? Pastordavid 19:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What I see is various personal attacks made by User:Summers95926 directed towards other users. They have encompassed that entire afd and it is going to be a pain for the closing admin to read through. This is your official warning any further such personal attacks or continued incivility will result in a 48hr block. Any other users please feel free to contact me on my talk page if this conduct continues. I will also address this issue on the user's talk page. Thank you, this issue is resolved.--Jersey Devil 19:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

COI? check out the chatbox on the site. That frankly goes a bit further than a conflict of interest (we get a mention if you scroll down the page). --Fredrick day 19:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The comments from presumed Wikipdians in that chat box are disgusting, and do not leave Wikipedia in a good light. Corvus cornix 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• What I see from wandering in and checking this issue and the AfD is a combination of the owner of the subject's fan site and the subject's mother (massive conflict of interest issues before I say anything further) screeching 'How dare these peons disagree with me! Off with their heads!', and getting more and more shrill with each edit. Nawlin is an admin who has a far better grasp of the guidelines than I do, and is a well-respected member of the community. I truly only see two editors here who have done anything worthy of a block. DarkAudit 20:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing this issue further I have decided to indefinitely block this account as an account used solely for promotional purposes. I agree with Fredrick that this is a major breach of COI. The user has solicited for afd votes outside of Wikipedia and has used various personal attacks against users on that afd. Other administrators feel free to add your comments regarding my block.--Jersey Devil 19:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'm an involved party. I disagree that this is a promo-only account: he's worked on other articles, like Mickey Mouse Club, Roller Games, and Wink Martindale. --SarekOfVulcan 20:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Posting of email

Resolved

Above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#As long as we're adding things to the record an email was posted onto this noticeboard by Evrik (talk · contribs). I'm not positive but I believe that it is inappropriate to post email in this manner, especially without consent. I honestly don't know who is right or wrong in the dispute, and frankly don't much care, but if this is inappropriate I feel that it should be taken down. Since I made my original post, I have been contacted by the author of that email requesting that it be taken down. This is the first time I've been involved in an email being posted, so I would appreciate another opinion. If another admin concurs, will they please do so, and possibly consider removing it from the history as well? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any need for the email. It's a general principle of modern life that posting private emails without permission is not a good idea. OTOH, I don't see a need to remove it from the history, as there's nothing especially private or harmful that I see. I'll just edit it out. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Nissan 300ZX

While on RC patrol last night I discovered an edit war at Nissan 300ZX between User:RedBeauty84ZX, User:Crackedplastic, and User:131.225.22.189, which I believe is a sock of Crackedplastic. The argument, which has been raging since May 30, is about photos of the cars. I warned them last night and they've kept reverting anyway, so a cooldown is in order. The page may need protection too since socks seem to be involved. (Am I correct?) - KrakatoaKatie 20:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Check out the page history... There's 1RR, there's 3RR, and then there's this!! -- Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Both users blocked for 24 hours. I'll keep an eye on the page and apply semi-protection if it becomes necessary. Shadow1 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also leaving a note RedBeauty84ZX's talk page regarding Image:BobSharpZ31.JPG. The image was previously deleted under CSD I3 because of its tagging. The user now tagged it as his own work, but has said that he has permission to use the image.[62] Nishkid64 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen much worse. Kotepho 21:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Raybuffer needs guidance

User:Raybuffer has spent the past 24 hours finding ingenious ways to use Wikipedia to promote himself and his documentary, perhaps somebody better at explaining things than me would like to just point out to him that some of this is not really what Wikipedia is about? I'd rather not just keep tagging and reverting without somebody else taking a look at it. Thank you --Zeraeph 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried warning him on his talk page? -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

blimey check those contributions - he's a one man spam machine. --Fredrick day 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't warned him yet cos he is SO FAST, and I wasn't exactly sure HOW severe his level of misguidance actually is (also, ok if I compete in the tact event in next Olympics I am not likely to bring home gold :o( )--Zeraeph 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted Ray Buffer. See deletion log for more. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NOW I have put a nice little note on User Talk:Raybuffer.--Zeraeph 21:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Rats & Bullies : The Dawn-Marie Wesley Story related? x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is, what he is doing is, after dropping links everywhere to the documentary website, making an article Rats & Bullies : The Dawn-Marie Wesley Story which is maybe at least half ok (or at any rate, not speedy delete), then making all these permutations of the name to redirect to it, then starting a series of article on the cast, crew and everything involved in documentary...and so it goes on. He has even "hang on" tagged at least one empty redirect Rats & Bullies --Zeraeph 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

{{db}}'ed the article above. I think this one needs an indefinite block as a spam-only account. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, though I would be in favor of just keeping Dawn-Marie Wesley that he set up in October? --Zeraeph 02:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)