Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive141

Christopher Shays / Diane_Farrell / et alia

Christopher Shays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) / Diane_Farrell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is making my head spin. I had some small part in a civility discussions with Francisx (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) but american politics is something I really would prefer to stay away from. It appears to be spread over two articles at least, and I have to admit I simply don't have the taste for sorting it out. Does anyone feel like stepping in, or must I simply grit my teeth and do some homework? - brenneman ^{L} 07:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Brevity isn't my forté. The three articles are Shays, Farrell, and Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006. I left a summary of the current situation on FloNight's talk page, but the situation has escalated since I last heard from her: I don't know her timing or if she's around. We have issues of civility, BLP, poorly-sourced edits not using reliable sources, and the latest is the insertion of almost direct copies of Farrell campaign ad material into Shays' article. (Shays should be scratching his head at why we allow that.) With the election in 3 weeks, and BLP issues occuring, mediation might not be the most effective option. There is currently an almost copy of Farrell campaign material on Shay's article: my attempt to remove it and start over was reverted. Sandy 07:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what the issue is. What Sandy calls "Farrell campaign material" consists of three reliably-sourced Shays quotations on the War in Iraq she says are taken out of context. Yet when asked to place them in context or amplify his views, she resists. Instead, we have massive reverts of sourced information, and ceaseless appeals to multiple Admins to block good faith NPOV edits. Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't have to answer to the Shays campaign, but even if it did, I'm not sure what WP would have to apologize for. Moreover, these quotations are absolutely necessary: Chris Shays has congressional oversight over the Iraq war, as the chair of a top congressional subcommittee, and his views on Iraq are extremely important. These quotations explain those views. It is silly to remove NPOV information about the Iraq war views of a top Congressman with oversight over the Iraq War, just because the Iraq war is a topic in the campaign.Francisx 07:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not resisted anything: my only edit was reverted, after long talk page discussion of an accumulation of things that needed to be addressed. Yes, Wikipedia does have to answer to any living person, which is why we have WP:BLP. The section (Views on Iraq) is written from and structured after Farrell's campaign ad, including direct quotes presented exactly as in her ad, POV and all, with no attempt at encyclopedic tone, neutrality, or balance. It does not behoove Wikipedia for a candidate's article in a widely-watched race to copy, parrot and summarize his opponent's campaign ad material: Farrell campaign material (not a reliable source) is used to source other edits in the articles, in addition to the BLP problems that are occuring. The article cannot be structured to parrot Farrell's campaign ad; I reverted to a previous version to provide a better place for starting over. This is separate from the civility issues, including labeling my attempt to remove the copy of the ad as "vandalism", ongoing failure to assume good faith, and repeated BLP issues. The current content is far from NPOV: it is an exact copy of quotes taken out of context from Farrell's campaign material, with no attempt at context, balance, or neutrality. Sandy 08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The "direct quotes" are direct quotes from Chris Shays, cited and properly attributed in the article to the Connecticut Post and CNN, not from a Farrell Campaign ad. No commentary or POV is added. As for my use of the word "vandalism," it concerned Sandy's removal of a large portion of sourced text here [1]. I also think this conversation (at least from our end) is probably better suited for the article's discussion page or arbitrartion.Francisx 08:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Direct quotes exactly parroting Farrell's ads. Verbatim. Farrell campaign POV, no balance, no context. The entire section written to parrot her ad. My edit *moved* a lot of sourced material around to accomodate other problems (discussed on talk), and only deleted the section parroting the Farrell ad. Sandy 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandy has been invited repeatedly to provide exactly the context she's talking about. She hasn't done so. These quotations are straightforward -- they aren't "gotcha" quotes by any stretch of the imagination -- and if Sandy feels they need contextualization, she should provide it. Instead, she's trying to turn this into a revert war. --Francisx 08:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

They still aren't completely cited, but I'm about halfway through finding and filling in sources and full text: they are all selective, biased, out of context portions of Shays' quotes, creating POV. "CNN 8/31/2006" is not a reference. So, I'm doing the research to correct a copy violation that wasn't mine. Sandy 10:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem this creates for Wiki isn't that hard to understand. You turn on your TV, you see an ad where Farrell is attacking Shays' record on Iraq. You read Shays' Wikipedia article, you see the exact presentation, the exact words, in the exact same order, you just saw on TV in a 30-second sound bite. You realize that Shays' entry in Wiki is Farrell's campaign ad. How can that not cause a problem for Wiki? How do we let that happen? In five years, how does it happen that the only things that Shays has said about Iraq to the press happen to be the exact things, in the exact order that Farrell is saying on TV? Wiki is an encyclopedia: we don't parrot campaign ads. We report the issue neutrally, and comprehensively, without selective quoting resulting in "spin". We need to fix this: Wiki cannot be a copy of a TV campaign ad. Sandy 08:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, if "in five years" Shays has said other things of note (which I'm sure he has), then Sandy should by all means post them to his WP article. I did create a "Views on Iraq" section, but by no means am I pretending it's comprehensive. This isn't a problem for wiki, this is a problem for two posters with obvious differences of POV. Again, I'm sorry we're debating this here, rather than in arbitration or better yet on the article's discussion page where I think it belongs.--Francisx 08:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Who's for protecting both articles? Or should we just block the warring parties util the election is over? Incidentally, Francisx, "some critics" is a weasel term. Name them. Better still, merge both articles to the election article because this is all specific to this year's campaign and is thus getting undue weight on the biographies. Guy 09:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

For historical context, to see where these articles are likely headed, look at this beauty of an article: Democratic Party primary, Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006.

(Joe Lieberman was the same after the August primaries: I cleaned it up last week.)

At least protect the candidate articles, so they aren't trashed as Lieberman was. (The copyvio/Farrell promo needs to be removed from Shays' article.) Warring parties? The article hasn't suffered much: I've been investing a lot of time on the talk page, just trying to hold down the BLP violations. The weasly "some critics" statement is sourced to the Democrat campaign website, which is partisan, and isn't a reliable source. I changed it; my change was reverted. And the fun hasn't even started: if it's anything like the August primaries, the anon POV and vandal edits will hit the articles hard a few weeks before the election. Sandy 09:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

1. If you actually read Chris Shays there is little evidence that the article has been trashed. On the contrary, uncontroversial NPOV information on the Congressman has been added. Sandy seems to be trying to wash several politicians' bios.

2. Despite oft-repeated claims to the contrary, there is absolutely no copyvio here -- all quotations used are from independent media sources and are clearly fair use. The constant reverts and tags and appeals to admins are highly disruptive and have a chilling effect on WP.

3. As for historical context, I had absolutely nothing to do with the Connecticut Senate primary articles, and I think Sandy knows that. Chris Shays is not Joe Lieberman. The information Sandy is targeting at Chris Shays is sourced, NPOV and highly topical.--Francisx 19:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandy is playing games.[2] This is not acceptable, especially weeks before an election. This user has changed the {cite} method and is citing the BLP to remove things that are sourced from the candiate's own webpage. While it is possible that the user is confused about policy in those two regards, that does not explain her/his other edits which I mentionedhere of removing a national headline. I have basically given up trying to engage that user who is WP:POINT. I don't think a temporary block should be ruled out. Arbusto 18:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction: as the diffs show, you inserted a direct quote and attributed it to Shays, when the quote you attributed to him was in fact a CNN headline, not words ever used by Shays at all. Reverted per BLP. You can't attribute words to Shays he never said as a direct quote by him. Perhaps you mistakenly thought CNN's headline were his words: they weren't. Sandy 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have issues on the Shays article with wording why not fix the wording? You did so on the Farrell article to ensure criticism stays. The above comment is indicative of the user's POV-pushing. I have a strong distaste for users who cite wikipedia policy for the POV. If this user keeps doing this, he/she should be blocked without haste. Arbusto 22:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't do that on the Farrell article: you are mistaken. After spending most of last night finding and fixing missing references for Francisx, it's not also my duty to rewrite every BLP violation. There are only so many hours in a day, and night. I'm hoping you'll invest some time in reading up on WP:BLP and understanding its importance. Sandy 00:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the optimal solution would be for an admin to revert all negative information introduced into any of these three articles between now and November 7th. Given that we're less than 30 days out from the election, any such editing ought to be considered WP:POINT violations by default. --Aaron 19:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd definitely support that, although it depends entirely on your definition of "negative." I don't see how a section outlining Chris Shays' views on Iraq -- the specific grievance here -- constitutes a "negative" addition. As always, the insertion of POV material should be unacceptable. But the candidates' statements and actions are not only fair game, they're essential. The Farrell article especially needs work (it was only recently undeleted) and I don't think a general block on new information would help things.Francisx 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather that both the Shays and Farrell articles be overly positive than to have new edits that could be even potentially considered as containing negative POVs. Sure, all this stuff is fair game in general, but at the end of the day, we're an encyclopedia, not a news service. (In my dream world, all articles about incumbents and candidates would be locked down 60 days prior to an election. Truly important breaking news would always be an exception of course (e.g. Bob Ney, Harry Reid and Mark Foley), but run-of-the-mill campaigning would be out.) --Aaron 20:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Run of the mill campaign information belongs on the campaign page. As for locking down the articles, that might make sense if the articles were decent to begin with, but both Diane Farrell and Chris Shays were basically substance-less campaign-written stubs just a week ago. In many cases, lack of interest in candidates means that proper articles won't be written about politicians until after public interest in the campaign rises.Francisx 20:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, three things. 1) Francisx please cease POV-pushing. It is good you are adding sourcing, but the article is about the man not about his Iraq views. The latter should be included but not to such a large extent. 2) Sandy needs a block. Sandy is removing removing sourcing claiming it fails to meet WP:RS. Why isn't a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee a good enough source to show Russell is backed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Russell's article? [3] This user is twisting policy for his/her own aims. WP:RS allows personal webpages to be used modestly in that subject's article. 3) If Francisx doesn't cease POV pushing he should get a block too. Arbusto 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting take on my edit, Arbustoo. JzG (talk · contribs) deleted the same source from the Christopher Shays article yesterday. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is ... ummm ... a campaign committee: a partisan, non-neutral site, not a reliable source. It can't be used to source criticism anywhere on Wiki, and particularly not on a WP:BLP. It would be interesting if I could be blocked for enforcing WP:BLP; it would certainly take the bite out of that policy. Sandy 00:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't see a difference between this and this? The Farrell article contained a source from the person's party on her.(You removed that one.) While the other is was removed from the Shays article containing the opposing parties view. (JzG removed that one.) (I agree with JzG's edit.)

Stop citing policy that you don't bother reading. From WP:RS: "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it..."

You are misquoting policy and POV pushing! Arbusto 04:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandy just archived his/her talk page with my questions. The heat getting turned up? Arbusto 23:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Vince Young article

I am working for the GA project and since it is logical to delist articles when they don't meet the standards, there are always users relisting them without making the appropriate changes and without complying with the renomination process. I need help to prevent that. They have even blocked the talk page on Sept 23, 2006 to prevent any change in GA status. Lincher 16:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Who are "they," and how did they do it? I'm not sure I understand what remedy you're seeking. Geogre 02:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Request 2nd opinion on User:Calgvla

I blocked this user yesterday for the 3RR violation reported on the noticeboard. He has a history of posting inflammatory comments to Armenia, Armenians, and their associated Talk pages, including proposals to cite Nazi literature to prove his point. The community has taken to simply removing his comments in many cases. His agenda seems to be to prove that Armenians should not be considered Europeans.

I opened a dialog with him hoping to help him understand that this agenda is incompatible with Wikipedia, but he doesn't seem much interested in that. He did, however, seem agreeable to be more civil in attempting to discuss his views and even to filing an RFC.

However, other editors of those articles brought to my attention that he has a sockpuppet, Caligvla (talk · contribs). I didn't block it because he didn't use it to evade his other block. He has recently started posting messages to editors' Talk pages though, requesting support of his issue. I have asked him to stop, and file an RFC like I suggested.

Anyway, anyone think this can be salvaged? Would someone here have just indef blocked both accounts? --Aguerriero (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I would (of course I'm not an admin., consider the overwhelming majority of his edits trolling and am in an editing dispute with him, so I'm not expecting anyone to take me too seriously on this issue).--Tekleni 18:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I would also like to point out some of his other edits which included blaming Armenians for "80% of all crime in Glendale", California along with an "outbreak of savage murders". I would also like to mention that Aguerriero is not the only one who assumed good faith and tried to reason with the above user to no avail, Dbachmann and Khoikhoi tried to reason with him without any results as well.--Eupator 18:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• 1) I have never once used Nazi materials, Eupator's defination is if a Nazi once read a certain book then that book is now a Nazi book. His comments are abusive.

• 2) I have tried several times to speak with Eupator directly and offer a rational and polite converstation, his response has been, blanket deletions, constant reverts, and racist accuasions.

I would still like to discuss the matter with him 1 on 1, I am a fair and open minded person.

• 3) The vast majority of crime in Glendale, CA is caused by Armenians that is a fact. You can contact the Glendale California Police Department at +1 (818) 548-4840, There have been over 20 murders in the last 18 months all of them caused by Armenians. However, I agreed that it was the wrong section to distribute this information as I later found plenty of articles on armenian power etc... they seem to cover the topic fairly. My intent to add the information was not to disparage Armenians but to contribute information that was unique to the Armenian presense in Glendale, CA. Prehaps responsible Armenians in other communities who were unaware of the problem would have great interest and get involved in a group to help reduce the problem.

• 4) My only goal is to be honest and truthful, and Armenia is not located in Europe, to propagate this POV is an injury to the European commuinty. --Caligvla 01:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• 5) Caligvla is not a sockpuppet, it is my Real account, Calgvla was a typo and was on my laptop as I extensively travel I did not notice there were 2 accounts until I got back to my desktop PC today, I have no intention of having 2 accounts and will only use my real Caligvla account.--Caligvla 01:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment, defamation, libel and slander by user Richardjames444

Entire comment can be found here (it was too lengthy). El_C 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked this guy to stop referring to my name, project name in any regard, and have yet again edited his comments that refer specifically to me. I have the right create on my user page in a form of computer/new media art, to comment in whatever language or form I feel free to express in. [...] I have repeatedly attempted to expunge previous username and posts, have requested assistence several times in doing so for the above reasons. Please honor this request and block Richard James from his harassing behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentdion (talk • contribs)

As far as I can tell, this user is simply angry about her username being used, as it is apparently her real name. I see no 'harrassment' on Richard's part (although he has been incivil in a few cases), but merely an attempt to prevent the confusing removal of the username from talk pages. Frankly, the only harrassment I can see is on Lauren's part, which seems to skirt WP:NLT more than once. I've issued her a warning about legal threats and personal attacks seen above, though I have a feeling it won't be enough. --InShaneee 19:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read, User:Laurentdion = User:Yakusudo. User only wants to be known as User:Yakusudo, but continues to edit while logged in as User:Laurentdion. I'm not an expert, but I think the second you create an account with your real name as your username, you pretty much cease to be anonymous. I don't know if there is any way to delete the username, but with the cat out of the bag, as it were, would it do any good? --Kbdank71 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, usernames can't be deleted. --InShaneee 19:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Urg, I've now blocked her for 24 hours. Her every edit has been along the lines of the above (ie, wild rants demanding that everyone who refers to her username is committing 'libel'). We'll see if it does any good. --InShaneee 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, it's a him, not a her. Laurent is a chap's name, and in any case it seems to be his surname. It might also be worth mentioning to him that stomping around changing people's talk archives and so on doesn't delete any of the history, and just draws attention to the stuff you're trying (futilely) to consign to oblivion. --ajn (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed his case (after prompting though a series of typically abusive emails), and am severely inclined to extend this block to indef for point violations (with no sign of stopping). Here's the timeline:

• [4] - Laurent's first edit is to defend an article about his own artwork.
• [5] - He then posts his own personal information on his userpage.
• [6] - Following the deletion of his article, he becomes abusive, demanding review.
• [7] - He forgets the article and just starts attacking editors involved in the deletion, along with Wikipedia on the whole.
• He posts Richard's personal information without his consent (which I won't link to for obvious reasons)
• [8] - He starts a campaign to remove all instances of his username, the name of the deleted page, and the word 'artist' when used in reference to himself.
• [9],[10] - Claims a 'right' to remove whatever he wishes about himself.
• [11] - Goes so far as to replace 'unsigned' templates with 'anon'.
• [12] - Returns under a new username, again wanting all material relating to him everywhere expunged.
• [13] - Begins using the new account to remove all comments by and about him from other user's pages.
• Starts documenting the process from his perspective on his talk page. Links to Richard's private site (again, no link).
• [14] - Jumps back to his original account and begins referring to mentions of his username/article as 'libel', starts removing any mention of them again.
• [15] - Posts a giant protest poem on his talk page following my block for personal attacks and disruption.

This is a single purpose account if I've ever seen one. Not a single article edit after three months. Whaddya think? --InShaneee 22:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if he wants to remian anonymous, I'm all for forgetting about the existence of this guy. Would an admin mind removing the message he left on my talk page from its history? Danny Lilithborne 00:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Richardjames444 10:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

After a failed event to circumvent his block this morning, I'm now getting password requests and requests for confirmation of new usernames similar to mine. An IP lookup confirms that it's most likely Laurent. --InShaneee 21:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Potential AFD sockpuppetry

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 (second nomination)

There appears to be quite a bit of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on here. I ran whois checks on two of the IPs (84.77.74.235 (talk · contribs) and 84.77.93.205 (talk · contribs)), and they're both based on the same ISP (fairly obvious, but I had to doublecheck). These anons are also posing as nonexistent users, and all of them are trying to keep the article, which has been deleted at least six times under various titles. There are also a few votes from brand new users (with no other edits). Would a RFCU be appropriate here? --Coredesat 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No comment on the AFD, but it's very rare that two IPs belonging to the same /16 range are not from the same ISP. ~crazytales56297 O rly? 20:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but I figured it was worth doublechecking anyway, in the event one or both were proxies. --Coredesat 20:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, easy enough to spot; none of em bother to put anything on their userpages. El_C 20:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoever closes the discussion should spot the illicit votes, but if this is a repetition of a previously deleted article, why not list it for cat:csd under G4 with a link to the last article name it had? Once you can determine that it's the same thing as the previous deletes, it should be a valid speedy. Geogre 02:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Line spacing

There's a problem with the MediaWiki name space it's usually:

PAGETITLE

---

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Same on Meta, wikibooks, commons. has someone hacked wikipedia. --213.162.236.9 11:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please be a little clearer? What are you reporting? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it must be referring to the same thing being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Style changes. the wub "?!" 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

LorenzoPerosi1898 Again

In response to a request for admin action yesterday, User:Andrew Norman left this friendly note for this user at his talk page. Since then, the user has made the following edits (note the change comments):

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonardo_Ciampa&diff=prev&oldid=81287746
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Rubinstein&diff=prev&oldid=81277896
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Lorenzo_Perosi&diff=prev&oldid=81277445
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_Lorenzo_Perosi&diff=prev&oldid=81276722

These edits show a continuing pattern of injecting unsupported assertions into articles, reverting insertion of tags to these unsupported assertions, using extremely hostile language in his change comments, and confusion of POV statements with what he refers to as "undisputed facts". He seems to think that the burden is on other editors to disprove his assertions, rather than on him to support them. This user also seems to feel that he "owns" certain articles: see his comment to "STOP VANDALIZING MY ARTICLES". This behavior has continued despite repeated attempts to point him to Wikipedia policies on Verifiability etc. Please could an admin do something about this. I don't know what steps short of blocking could induce him to change his behavior. Thanks. Grover cleveland 21:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Grover, take a deep breath. Now take another one. Everything you wrote above is one big POV. Do you have a personal vendetta? If so, here is not the forum to vent. Take a long walk. Get away from the computer screen for a while. I have done nothing other than to contribute to topics that mean something to me -- which is what every contributor here does. Calm down. LorenzoPerosi1898 01:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lightning-Feather

• Lightning-Feather (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

This is a bit of a long one, but I want to lay out as much evidence as possible. This fellow was recently given a 2-day block for legal threats, but I've discovered that a year ago, while he was editing under an IP on the deletion page for his bio, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, he made several legal threats:

• [16]: "I may yet have you investigated for any prejudices you might harbor against any persons, ethnicities or other, in case I may have to seek legal remedies"
• [17]: "WIKIPEDIA...YOU WILL PAY DEARLY IN COURTS OF LAW FOR DEFAMING MY CHARACTER..."
• [18]: "I forbid anyone from further attempts to defame my character, and I have informed my solicitor in London to find the means to enforce my request, if need be."

It is certain that the IP and User:Lightning-Feather are the same. When editing under an IP, the user identified himself as Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo. On his website, Ady says that his "Native American name" is Lightning-Feather, and on the userpage for this account he again identifies himself as Fenyo.

Strangely, this man was never blocked for legal threats while editing under the IP, even though even a legal threat usually gets an immediate block. The IP was, however, blocked for "mass spammings", which he has kept up under the username (just look at the contribs). Since his activity both then and now was dedicated solely to writing biographies of himself on WP and citing himself as a philosopher in other articles, and since he loves to make legal threats, I suggest he be permanently blocked. CRCulver 21:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

For some reason he decided to email me asking that I contact him on some private account, I will put up a copy of this email in my userspace, more than likely User:Ryulong/Lightning-Feather. Ryūlóng 22:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny that he accuses me of anti-semitism in his letter too. In his addition to my user-page, he claims that he knows just from looking at the portrait picture of me on my website that I "hate Muslims and Jews". If you look at the AfD discussion from a year ago, you can see that back then he was tarring all who disagreed with him (even Jewish editors) as anti-semites. Yet another reason to have him blocked, he's plainly not a civil editor. CRCulver 22:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What, no diff of that strange legal threat where he outwardly calls you an anti-semite and threatens to bring the B'nai Brith at your feet? Ryūlóng 22:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

He's continuing to do vanity editing, and just created the article Infinitology. CRCulver 23:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

He's now demanding at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/Lightning-Feather that I not be allowed to critique his edits without a Jewish editor on my side. CRCulver 00:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mike Church (maybe, probably not)

...is back. User_talk:Antandrus#Ambition, and the recent history of ambition. He's remarkably persistent, as this is more than two and a half years now that he has been trying to force his card game "Ambition" into Wikipedia. If anybody remembers, or is willing to help, please put ambition on your watchlist and keep an eye out for more socks. Antandrus (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Have marked Pensive 44 (talk · contribs), Ike Sarottle (talk · contribs), AHSA (talk · contribs) and Prestegious (talk · contribs) as probable socks. _→AzaToth 23:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's a blast from the past. For those who haven't experienced the joys of Mike Church yet, he's pretty noisy about it and will toss up a big flurry of citations that don't bear investigation. If needed, I'm sure we can find the links to some of the several debunkings of his claims. He is very energetic. Geogre 02:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like they all came from here: [19]. I blocked the account that was spawning the socks, and protected Ambition, which I hope does it for now. Antandrus (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE; it's not Mike Church. Look: [20] -- I had to go way back in the user creation log to 7 October to find where one of the socks was spawned. Look at the edits of the spawner, and edits of the spawned. It's that kid we used to call the "North Carolina Vandal" -- he's imitating Mike. The writing style wasn't quite right anyway, and Mike can spell better than that ("prestegious"). Not that it really matters differentiating one vandal from another, but I was wondering why these socks were behaving like they were editing from a blocked IP, as the NCV is. Antandrus (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mirenmere (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) OK, he's admitted it. Now that he's found out, expect to see him imitating another "well known" vandal next. Please make sure you block the spawning accounts since his IP range is blocked and they're all he can use. Antandrus (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I blocked Hirschten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since it was only used to spawn vandal accounts. Thatcher131 15:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! not sure how I missed that one; I thought it had been blocked. I just blocked Country Jeb!! (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for the same reason. Antandrus (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Username Vio

User STR1KER (talk · contribs) has a username violation based on this [www.str1ker.com] artist. It may be the artist herself (this account created the page for the subject), but it would still violate our username rules, no? -- Chabuk 00:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. wikipedia:username prohibits usernames which are that of "well-known living or recently deceased people ... unless you are that living person". So if she's the artist, there's no violation. If she isn't , we've still taken a pretty high standard for "well known" (and this artist is well below that, I think). For borderline cases the behaviour of the account can be a giveaway - if they're pretending to be Minor Politician Jim and they're editing suggests it's someone trying to make the real Jim look bad then we'd block and ask for verification that they're really Jim. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okey doke. Sorry about that. -- Chabuk 00:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Protected page should be redirected and still protected

Don't know where to put this, but since only admins can edit it, this seems a good a place as any. Candlejack has been recreated a few times, so it was delete-protected. However, the character Candlejack is from the TV show Freakazoid!, so anyone coming to Wikipedia looking for information about Candlejack would want to be directed there, I think. Could this be redirected to the TV show? K bye 70.171.32.217 00:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've now made this a redir to Freakazoid!. Thanks/wangi 02:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Place for this was the requests for page protection page. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure if I was clear - it was already protected (else I'd have redirected it myself). Not sure if you understood that. I mean it's academic now, but just for future reference, is that really where I go for this (a deleted page redirect request)? Thanks for the redirect in any case. 68.101.67.48 12:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

yes. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 12:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User Seadog.M.S / 201.248.204.176

I'm not certain if this is the proper place to address this; please redirect me if so. I saw a speedy delete tag put on Slide (guitar), which seemed odd I and started looking into things. The user that had put the tag on, Seadog.M.S, seems to have something of a history making disruptive and/or vandalizing edits, at least anonymously through 201.248.204.176. This sort of research is a little beyond my proficiency at this point, but it seems this user has been previously blocked and appears to have sought to suppress this information, if I am not mistaken. I wanted to alert those familiar with the user's history so that fitting response is possible. Please let me know if my perceptions are accurate, and direct me in dealing with such things generally. ENeville 00:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User removing warnings from talk page

See this.--Redderman 03:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Banned user of the same user who was harrasing Cyde, I blocked as a sock. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyvios on Ship Construction

I just came across Basseem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); looking at his contributions Special:Contributions/Basseem mostly images and edits to Ship Construction, it's clear that the images he uploaded are not his own autocad product, as he tagged them, but scans out of naval architecture textbooks. I don't actually know the proper procedures for dealing with a large copyvio so... can someone take this up and do the right thing with it? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Line spacing

There's a problem with the MediaWiki name space it's usually:

PAGETITLE

---

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Same on Meta, wikibooks, commons. has someone hacked wikipedia. --213.162.236.9 11:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, what? Can you be more clear? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Z-vandal

There is a vandal roaming about, making edit-summary vandalism to his talkpage and evading autoblocks. If you see an account add silly "ZZZZZZZZZZ" edit summaries, please block the account indefinitely, no warning necessary. So far we have:

• 195.188.152.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Motorola WHLR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jimbo Quails (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP listed is confusing me. I tried blocking it to prevent account creation, but I got a notice that it was already blocked. So I tried to unblock it and got a screen saying that it might be already unblocked. Strange... Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image backlog at C:CSD

24.163.65.156 (talk · contribs) has tagged many images uploaded by GoOdCoNtEnT (talk · contribs) for speedy deletion, with various reasons. The images aren't completely kosher, but speedy deletion is probably not the right process for them. The help of image-experienced admins is needed. Kusma (討論) 14:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

F.C. Copenhagen

Please semi-protect the article F.C. Copenhagen. The page is vandalized a lot which is very sad. I am tired of revert the so much. In the last 100 edits, I have reverted 10 times[21]!

Please act quickly. kalaha 15:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please use WP:RPP for this situation when it arises. I'm not going to protect this, but I've watchlisted it. Yanksox 16:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Page moved by one user despite unanimous consensus not to do so

Nixer (talk · contribs) moved Sanhedrin to Synedrion (Judea) despite wide consensus for not doing so and extremely stiff opposition. Also posted on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Request administrator intervention against Nixer immediately. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yanksox (talk · contribs) and Runcorn (talk · contribs) moved the page back. Still need someone to give Nixer a stiff warning. The discussion ended 10 days ago with a unanimous 'no'. Yet, 10 days after the discussion had ended, Nixer just changed it anyway. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 72 hours, and he is currently requesting an unblock. I'll step back on this one. Yanksox 16:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is evidence that he appreciates the disruption caused and is sorry then I will do a bit more AGF and unblock him. However, Nixer might be running out of the community's patience. The Land 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked. It is arguably less bad to perform dodgy pagemoves than to be edit-warring. However, please do keep an eye on th parties involved. The Land 17:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note also that Daniel575 is a noted civility breaker and maker of personal attacks. (for admins, look here:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel575) and all his arguments in the talk page were only "you're an idiot" and "you dont know anything". No any other argument.--Nixer 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Noted. I am confused, however, about why you would believe Daniel's rudeness would excuse your decision to ignore (at least) three other editors who also weighed in – politely and rationally – against your proposed move. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:PANONIAN

Reverts my edits without reason continously as soon as he's able to. These from yesterday only:[22], [23], [24], [25]. I tried to use discussion pages several times before, in other cases and articles, both logged in and logged out. I guess he's or [[Tankred) User:Otu2 also, but I'm assuming good faith for the last time and not ask for a checkuser, besides that it is more than obvious. I simply suggest warning him to stop trolling. Thanks. --VinceB 18:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The true problem here is User:VinceB. He posting ultra-nationalist POV and deleting parts of various articles with no explanation, and I simply repairing the damage that he done to Wikipedia. He was already blocked for sockpuppetry. Besides all this, most of the articles that he edit are on my watchlist, so, I certainly do not "revert his edits without reason continously as soon as I'm able to", but as I said, repairing the damage that he caused there. PANONIAN (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you compare my and his edits, you will see that most of my Wikipedia edits are not in the articles where I reverted User:VinceB, while he edit same articles again and again trying to implement his POV and therefore he was involved in revert war not only with me but with several other users who saw his behaviour as destructive. PANONIAN (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

At the top of this page it clearly states that this is not a place for dispute resolution, and provides a very nicely outlined list of places where to go for what.--Konst.able 22:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing cited Material

User:Proabivouac keep removing well cited material from The Quran and science page. I do not know, what I should do to stop him from doing that. Any help in this regard will be great. --- ابراهيم 19:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ttiotsw's, Arrow740's and my own edit summaries make it clear that this material was moved to the established temp page, where Ibrahimfaisal is free to work to bring it up to par. Anyone interested in the character of this material or in the debate surrounding it on talk is welcome to take a look.Proabivouac 19:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You have make this your habit to remove and change cited material and it is not a good habit to keep. They remove the section saying it heading is not what the quote said. I put it back changing it heading but you still keep removing it. Why? --- ابراهيم 19:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with moving bad material to a temporary subpage to improve its quality. --InShaneee 21:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes if it is bad and not referenced. --- ابراهيم 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Perm banned user User:Leyasu evading ban, causing more trouble

I would really appreciate admin intervention in restraining this banned user's disruption. I have already asked for semi-protection for the articles he's hitting the most with IP's (Rotting Christ, Moonspell, Tiamat (band), Diabolique (band), Crematory, Wildhoney, Paradise Lost (band), many more) a request which seems to have been overlooked. User:Leyasu's sockpuppets have also been throwing accusations that the users reverting his post-ban edits are "banned", he has "consensus" or "RFC support" for his post-ban edits, that other users are "vandals", all (as everyone knows) is completely untrue. He has no regard for his perm banned status and continues to abuse Wikipedia and attack other editors just as he did during his pre-ban days. Admins, please enforce. --Danteferno 13:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, see your talk page for more. Deizio talk 13:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

One problem is that there usually isn't more than one edit per article per day, which doesn't really meet the threshhold for semi-protecting a dozen or more articles. Because Leyasu uses disposable British Telecom IPs, there's no point in blocking once he had logged off for the day. For example, this morning he was at it from 81.156.152.0 (talk · contribs), but is gone now. Your best bet would be to post to AIV (or maybe here, in case the AIV patroller is not familiar with the history) to block the IP as soon as it starts up. Thatcher131 15:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to catch this on the head. Deathrocker and Danteferno have been banned from changing the article versions until they provide counter sources. Thus, no vandalism. I might remind you all that he is also still claiming users to be sockpuppets whenever somebody reverts him, still making the claim about users RFC shows are not sockpuppets. There is no vandalism in reverting vandalism. And remember this much, im not the only person to revert Danteferno and Deathrocker - Cronodevir, Sn0wflake, WP:HMM users, and Ours18 are amongst others also watching these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.130.138 (talk • contribs) aka banned user Leyasu

You have been permanently banned by the community. As such, any editor may revert any edit you make without regard to its content or merit. The fact that this applies equally to Deathrocker was affirmed by Fred Bauder who said, I would let whoever is reverting Leyasu continue. I know I don't want that chore. [26] You also mis-state the terms of Deathrocker's probation. I'm sorry you've been banned; you can appeal to the arbitration committee if you want. Thatcher131 06:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hairwizard91

Hairwizard91 (talk · contribs), along with IPs that I suspect to be sockpuppets, has been massively POV-pushing in Korean-history related articles (for an example of how the POV-pushing has been, see [27]. I'm a bit unsure how to proceed with this user, as he/she appears to be capable of constructive edits, but has chosen to impose POV changes without discussion, and a block of the main account or the IPs appears ineffective. Further, he/she is also very prolific, which makes it difficult to check for POV, effectively forcing me to revert each edit that he/she makes whether problematic or not. Opinions requested. --Nlu (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That diff has a lot of material, can you provide more narrow examples of the problematic content? El_C 00:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an example. The user had previously posted nearly identical content with the same POV as 69.220.163.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see [28]), 68.252.57.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see [29]), and 68.252.41.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see [30]), among other IPs. --Nlu (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's still a bit too prolific for me. Perhaps you can cite a few key sentences? El_C 09:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is really less the content than the behavior -- in other words, the user insist on imposing what he/she wanted in the article regardless of what others thought, and was refusing to listen. Part of the content is also in Korean, and when the user -- who clearly knows English -- has chosen to communicate on talk pages, he/she has largely done so in Korean. --Nlu (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible speedy delete from Florida

I am a bit concerned about the Lori Klausutis article. It is up for deletion here. Some have made observations that this could be a speedy delete as an attack page. Not sure if this is the case, but could an admin look at this? BTW, I did a check with WHOIS, and the person who is the relative (see the request for delete as pointed out here) to the subject looks legit. I am only "assuming the good faith" here. Thanks. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the attack part... El_C 00:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If there are no issues, let the AfD run its course. I am only assuming good faith on possible "legal" issues here, that is all. Sorry I brought this up. Cheers. JungleCat talk/contrib 00:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I just didn't notice anything striking (possibly it was edited out since). El_C 00:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User 71.195.147.135 - link spam

This user is a major spammer. He is adding links to hundreds of sports stadiums directing people to a website called mapgameday.com. It appears he/she has been blocked for this in the past. A few of his edits have already been reverted today as spamming, but there are a lot and it would be helpful if an admin could look into it. KnightLago 00:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nevermind, looks like someone already blocked him. KnightLago 00:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV for fastest response.--Andeh 12:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

67.190.44.85 evading block

IP user in question posted in Talk:Freddie_Mercury#No_need_to_post_.22B-class_article.22_designation under the new IP of 138.67.44.79. *Sparkhead 12:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Gunus Suir

I have indef blocked Gunus Suir (talk · contribs) as he claims to be a sockpuppet of indef blocked users. Please review. If anyone thinks posting about this here is against the spirit of WP:DENY feel free to remove this thread. Thanks. --W.marsh 16:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the two DRV requests and replaced the sockpuppet tags with a generic {{indefblock}}. Naconkantari 17:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

LorenzoPerosi1898

This user has persistently made extreme POV and unverifiable changes to the Vladimir Horowitz and Arthur Rubinstein pages. When these are corrected, he reverts them back again. Please block him. Thanks. Grover cleveland 01:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

He has since done the same thing at Don Lorenzo Perosi. See here. His attitude is not improving. Grover cleveland 03:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh come off it - hyperbolic praise of pianists and removing a {{fact}} are grounds for blocking him? I've left a note asking him to tone down the enthusiasm, but his intentions are good - he's a newish editor, he needs to be given some latitude (and he also needs to learn that gushing praise is not the correct tone for articles). I've left a note on his talk page. --ajn (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I must second this complaint. This user seems to have a vendetta against both Grover Cleveland and myself, and has made a point of going into articles and removing cited, verifiable statements, and replacing them with his own opinions. He has been warned several times and is batantly crosssing the line. THD3 21:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I must also object to his use of the term "gay" flowery language, in a comment about an edit on the Evgeny Kissin page. To the best of my knowledge, homophobia is not a Wikipedia policy. THD3 21:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a general misunderstanding of late as to the true intent of WP:NPOV and WP:V. To state a "fact" (or, if you prefer, a "generally held belief") which is supported by virtually all sources and contradicted by few if any, it is not appropriate to slap a "" tag on, just for one's jollies. "Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents." One DOES NOT have to provide a source for such a statement!!! There is where y'all are a little unclear about the rules here. To even attempt to name "one source" for the above comment about Lincoln is ridiculous. If, instead, you know of a source that contradicts it, it is your onus to find one. Perhaps you also disagree that Lincoln was the 16th president. If you think he was the 15th or 17th, go prove it. Slapping here and there might be enjoyable to you, but that is not the appropriate response to accepted fact. This clarification is intended not towards any one editor in particularly, but clearly it has become a trend, and a very immature one. Best, LorenzoPerosi1898 00:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln is a bad example - he's guilty of winning a Civil War apparently costing more than twice as many lives as Saddam Hussein's Iraq Civil War in 1991 (Saddam's Civil War was imposed on him - I suppose it's possible that Lincoln was in the same position). Alternatively, perhaps contributors here are required to abide by an AF (American Friendly) point of view, in which case I'm sorry, I didn't notice this injunction in my Wikipedia Welcome Pack. PalestineRemembered 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, PalestineRemembered is positively correct. Abe Lincoln was not the 16th President. How silly of me! LorenzoPerosi1898 09:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your example stating that Lincoln is one of greatest presidents is simply an opinion. It's a widely shared opinion, but it is not an "accepted fact". Accepted by whom? Him being the 16th president on the other hand is a fact found in most general reference sources and is easily locatable by anyone - it's undebatable and will never change. Greatest president on the other hand is, as I've mentioned, simply the opinion or the Point of View of a large number of people, and even that could be subject to change. Yankees76 21:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

FYI, LorenzoPerosi1898 has since been indef blocked by Gwernol for "making false accusations and deliberately falsifying evidence to discredit editors in good standing" per here. Glen 07:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Usage of images in signatures

Problem

WP:SIG is a guideline on Wikipedia as of now, and those who flaunt outrageous signatures with images in them can get away with it. I think it is time to set a precedent here and make is a policy on wikipedia so that usage of images on Wikipedia is discouraged. Alkivar (talk · contribs) (who is incidentally an administrator on en.wiki) has been flaunting an image in his signature since a long time. Reminders [31] to remove image by me and other users have been ignored by Alkivar and he conviniently chose to ignore them and clear his talk page for archiving [32] and he continues to have the image in his signature. I would like the community to adjudicate on this matter.

Reference– User talk:Alkivar

More about the problems that images cause can be read here — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 09:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't know much about the server load question but I do note that when uploading images for articles last night, the image server was struggling. Signatures are an expression of users' individualism and we should resist tampering unless it's necessary, but I personally do not like images in signatures. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of many editors who still use images in their signatures. If they do, they should be reprehended and persuaded to change the signature to something more acceptable. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Um. Do you mean reprimanded or apprehended? I'm picturing chasing Alkivar around with a big butterfly net... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reprehend v.t. - rebuke. (see reprehensible) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. You learn something new every day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla. This is another heavy handed way of dealing with something which is not really a problem except in the minds of a few. By the way, mocking someone for mistyping, is not exactly in the spirit of WP:civil or AGF...especially when English is not their native language and it is bloody obvious what they meant.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you're making this a big deal, Nearly Headless Nick, as Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has already pointed out it is a guideline, not yet a policy. Maybe this does deserve discussion but not in the manner that you are approaching it with - threats to block him, posting on WP:AN/I, and just general aggresion and disrespect towards a fellow admin, whom I'm assuming, has done nothing else to you. If this is an issue, it should be discussed in much more peaceful terms. Please calm down.--Konst.able 09:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It may not be a big issue but then -Ril-'s confusing signature did end up going to the ArbCom. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that seems to have been a ~~~~ for a signature and then replaced by some abusive comments. Alkivar had an svg image (which is just a 2kb piece of XML code by the way) - I don't see how this warrants cold orders followed by threats of being blocked.--Konst.able 09:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check this too, which was posted by some user as an anon, probably by mistake and was removed from his talk page by Alkivar. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That IP address post was posted by a vandal (see this other edit). Presumably this is User:DickyRobert my regular stalker, who presumably also posted as Seattle Lonelyguy here and IrregularSignature here.  ALKIVAR™ 20:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Konstable, please check this user's talk page carefully, and you will see the number of times, I (and other users) have asked this user to remove the image. Images in signature are a problem for Wikipedia, and this user has been blocked by an administrator for flaunting a confusing signature with image(s) in it. The fellow admin you are referring to does not understand Wikipedia and its processes and has assumed bad faith with me and perhaps other editors (check his user talk page). What I am proposing here is to ban usage of images in signatures, and persuading other users to change their signatures by removing the images. Perhaps you should see the acidulous language he has used to reply to me. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I had posted the warning only as a last resort. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nick, this seems like a classic WP:PERF issue... I tend to doubt that Alkivar's signature is really destroying the Wiki, but if it (and others) were having any significant impact at all the devs would deal with it. Trying to make policy on the basis of 'this is better for performance' has consistently caused nothing but aggravation and thus is itself strongly discouraged. As is repeatedly arguing a point and/or threatening users. Have you clocked the nanoseconds 'wasted' by Alkivar's signature image... and does that add up to more or less than the wasted time and aggravation being caused by your argument over it? --CBD 13:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried explaining to Nick that I have spoken with dev's over this back around 1 July, 2005 and they told me it caused negligable server load and that it was harmless. When User:R3m0t had initially said something on my talk page about the sig image.  ALKIVAR™ 20:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is much more to the problems that images cause than performance. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support an outright ban on any images in signatures. It's entirely unnecessary and the drawbacks far outweigh the non-existent benefits. --Cyde Weys 20:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How about also banning code in a signature that affects how a user's cursor appears? That's not very helpful. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat off from the topic, what's with the "Comments left by anonymous editors may be removed without warning...." banner? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk)

I have a regular stalker named User:DickyRobert who posts alot of garbage on there as an anonymous IP, or with a SPA. Its put there to tell people that I may wipe it as vandalism by accident, there is no secret conspiracy to keep down anonymous users :)  ALKIVAR™ 20:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Its quite different from removing good faith messages posted on talk page, than removing vandalism attacks. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy is what wikipedians do. Guidelines do carry weight, otherwise, if only policy has to be followed, why have guidelines at all? -- Drini 22:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought editing was what Wikipedians do. The framework of the encyclopedia is its weakest part by far in what i've seen so far, there seems to be no method of making guidelines other than just saying it is one and saying anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. People Powered 18:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

1st note, i've not read any of the comments above... so this is a straight braindump. Anyway, my take is that there are bigger problems..., but the wacky sigs do piss me off from time to time. Pissing time away talking about images and the like isn't useful. We need to revert to a standard sig, including at least user page and talk page to meet the main reasons for non-std sigs. Turning off user-specified signatures should be do-able. Thanks/wangi 00:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's strongly discouraged to use images in signatures these days. They should ban all images in signatures, though this is only a guideline NOT a policy. I hope Alkivar will remove his image in his signature and just have text in it. I support any ban on images in signature, as it can be irritating. What does it give to the particular user anyway? --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There has to be a compromise somewhere. —freak(talk) ☢ 21:08, Oct. 14, 2006 (UTC)

It is gratifying to know that we have reached a point in the evolution of Wikipedia where we have managed to solve all the large, pressing, important issues, and can now spend our time arguing over small, inconsequential details like the aesthetic implications and the server drain caused by a 2k, 18x16 pixel image file. Ξxtreme Unction 14:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys how does everyone like my new signature? -- 15px S 15px t 15px e 15px e 15px l 15px 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh! As long as the servers don't crash, I like it! :-) People Powered 22:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Outrageous. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if I recall correctly, it's just as bad (if not worse) than the full size image, as the server has to load the image and then shrink the size, using just as much bandwidth (or more) than having a 600x525 image. --Rory096 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The image in Alkivar's sig is not a 600x525 image that is being shrunk to 18x16. It is an 18x16 image, and its file size is 2k. This is easily verifiable by right-clicking on the image and selecting "properties". This subsection of WP:ANI in which we discuss the server implication of such sig images, is several times larger, byte-wise, than the image in Alkivar's sig. Ξxtreme Unction 23:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, that information that you get from right-clicking just means that an 18x16 image was sent down to your browser. It doesn't tell us what had to happen server-side to generate that 18x16 image. It could stil be the case that the server loads the 600x525 image and shrinks it down to 18x16 every time the smaller image is called for. Geekily yours, FreplySpang 00:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The devs aren't idiots. The server shrinks the image once, then caches it for futher use. The only time the server will need to re-shrink the image is if someone uploads a new version over the existing one. --Carnildo 01:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My one and biggest consern with regards to images in signatures is what happens when the image is to be deleted (eitehr since a better one have replaced it or it has been given a "better" name and so on, granted this seems unlikely in Alkivar's particular case but still, if we allow some images as "safe" it's hard to deny others based on that presidence). This have happened several times in the past for example images of national flags have been revamped and renamed to various standards several times, and flags that where often used in signatures therefore where a LOT harder to replace in articles and such because the file links where absolutely bursting with talk and AFD pages and so forth (agrivated by the fact there there is still no easy way to see more than the "top 500" pages an image is used in). Personaly I can live with people having 5 lines of markup as theyr signature (but I would ask them to trim it down), but I don't think images should be used. Granted Alkivar's use is fairly "safe" it's a "stable" image not likely to be deleted any time soon, but still generaly speaking images in signatures are bad that's why we have a guideline that strongly advice against it, and when people see and amin using an image anyway, any image it will undermine what little "power" than guideline has because people will figure if it's ok for an admin to do it they can too. Trying to explain to people why theyr image is bad while other images are ok is hard work, and I would ratehr not wake up one day and find flashy animated gifs runnign all our talk pages, and the "myspace generation" do love theyr flashy stuff. --Sherool (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it will be a lot difficult to gain consensus here. I shall post a proposal on WT:SIG. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Will wait for sometime. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it extremely ironic when I see an admin criticise another admin for not following a guideline, and then that very admin violates another point of that same guideline. (i.e. WP:SIG#Customizing your signature) —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we have had enough of your strawman arguments, Malber. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 09:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this matter has been blown way out of proportion. What could have been settled with a few lines of civil dialogue, has now escalated into messy ego-brawl. The image in Alkivar's sig definitely isn't going to crash the servers. However several rookie users look up to the conduct and actions of experienced users and admins for guidance and mimic it themselves. I used to have a image in my signature which I copied (quite ironically) from nathanrdotcom's who helped me out in my initial days. Similarly several newbies may look at Alkivar's sig and say "Hey that looks cool!" and decide to put flashy images in their own signatures which will cause a drain on the servers and subsequent uglier problems. I feel the involved people should take their egos off the line and try to reach an amicable compromise. Thanks --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Srikeit -- Samir धर्म 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You can rest assured that I do not sport any grudge here with Alkivar, but I have a problem with images in signatures. This string was posted here so that we could gain a communal imprimatur, before taking any actions. If the concerned user had responded to my notices, this would not have been here at all. In my opinion, administrators should respect guidelines and act maturely. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's another user in support of Nick's original point. Images in sigs really are ridiculous, and I'm in support of getting people to remove them immediately - but politely. A little community pressure seems like a reasonable way to accomplish this, but I don't really endorse anything more severe than that. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Images in signatures are kind of distracting. Also, I don't see the point in renaming the links in a signature. The links in signatures would be easier to use if they were in the same place on every signature. It's not so pleasant search for the letter in someone's username that will direct me to that user's talk page. Jecowa 11:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

An admin placing in user talk the section header Warning and threatening a block based on a guideline and not on policy would seem to be actions that were not in good faith. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And how about this? The user did not heed to this message and instead archived his talk page minutes after this notice was posted. Do you think he would have responded if I had posted the same notice once again? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Pointing to your own diffs is precisely my point, Headless. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And your point being...? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As one of only three people in this section to use a standard signature link (and having never ever used a custom signature), I feel I am qualified to tell everyone here that your signatures mostly look crap. You should all get on with writing encyclopedia articles instead of stuffing around trying to outdo one another with more garish colours, superfluous images and unintelligible links to random pages like policy statements, Special:Blockip and your contributions. Images should go because they are ugly and temporary, not because of their server load. Having said this, a year or so ago there were terrible problems with the image server, and images used across the 'pedia (like on templates) had to be removed for a while to ease the server load. So it's not entirely implausible that this may cause problems in the future. - Mark 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh please... Steel's, at least, is rather pointedly awesome. --tjstrf 17:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It took me way too long, but I did just read this entire thread. I have no problem Alkivar's use of that image in that specific way. The number of other images that I find appropriate for use in signatures is very small. I agree that Alkivar's use is not directly hurting the project. That said, it does set a precedent if an admin has an image in their sig. I have had problems with radioactively unstable images in sigs before (see my talk archives, pun intended). Unless there is a protected list somewhere of images deemed appropriate for use in signatures and a policy behind what is included in said list, I think it would be best if there were no images in signatures. I understand Alkivar's wanting to keep the same sig and would be interested to know what Alkivar and others think about Freakofnurture's suggestion.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 19:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Resolution

This is my proposal, I hope this makes sense. Everybody is invited to add their comments below. :)

• Images might not look like a big deal with only a single user having them in their signature; but it definately would not help the project if they are used by a number of users.
• Newbie users and non-admins can be persuaded when they are told that it would be difficult for them to secure adminship by the way of RfAs; because there stands a high probability that they will be opposed for violating WP:SIG guidelines. The case is not the same with administrators.
• Carnildo rebuttled outgeeked FreplySpang's comments about the image being cached in the server for further use. It is not a question of a singular 2k image, but 2k multiplied by the number of times Alkivar signs his comments.
• I propose that this be moulded into a policy and a precedent be set regarding this.
• After having a talk with an experienced commons user, I can definately add here that – When they try to delete or move an image, they will not be able to do so easily if that image is all-over the place, as in case of signatures. The interwiki bots are definately going to have a problem making the moves.
• And who said, "Alkivar's Radioactive.png is stable?" Its irradiated my balls already and now they are glowing in the dark! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is absolute not worth wasting electrons on. The arguments about images in sig files take up more bytes than the images in the sig files themselves. --Ξxtreme Unction 15:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Gah. Wikispace is cheap. Wikibandwidth is not. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikibandwith is pretty cheap as well, to the point where the devs have said "If the only argument you can come up with to oppose something is 'THE SERVER LOAD OMG!'" then you generally don't have an argument. If the server load is significant, the devs will take care of the problem on their end. They've said as much.

And if they don't care, I'm not sure why I should. I'm certainly not in a position to gainsay them, and neither are you. --Ξxtreme Unction 15:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Why make problems for them? I say propose it as policy. --InShaneee 15:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of Pascal's Wager in issues of either theology or technology.

It is not a problem now. No one has offered any evidence other than vague speculation that it will be a problem in the future. This is a solution in search of a problem. --Ξxtreme Unction 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hogwash. Have you not noticed the number of users' having their signatures bedizened with images? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That would be the "vague speculation" I alluded to earlier. If you want me to take you seriously that this is a serious problem, you need to provide credible evidence that this is a serious problem. Not "Well, a lot of users have images in their sigs, so it's obviously a problem." It's not "obviously" a problem. It's vague speculation and hand-waving argumentation. --Ξxtreme Unction 16:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are as ignorant as you are pretending to be, perhaps you need to open your eyes and look around. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 18:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Flattery will get you nowhere.

The facts remain: There is no credible evidence to indicate that this is a problem. "Looking around" doesn't make credible evidence magically appear. I have looked around. I don't see a problem. I see only hang-wringing supposition, and aesthetic objections.

When the devs have a problem, they're not shy about saying so. WP:AUM owes its existence to that fact. --Ξxtreme Unction 18:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. Like Mdd4696 has put it rightly you can read it and weep. I don't want anymore head-banging over this. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 18:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Issue has already been thoroughly discussed

Didn't anyone look through the discussion archive at WP:SIG? This has all been discussed before. Read it and weep. There was consensus to disable images in signatures altogether, through technical means. There's a bugzilla request, but I suppose the developers are a bit hesitant to make the killing blow. ~MDD4696 17:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, we have something here. But, why wasn't a notice regarding this posted on the SIG page? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Per discussions with Alkivar, over IRC. I am here to apologise for my aggresive and tactless behaviour, particularly over his talk page. I hope that Alkivar understands the issues raised here and is willing to compromise. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 21:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion compromise reached... now lets all get on with our lives...  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black and fair use images

User is delinking fair use images and later is speedy deleting them. User is only "allowing" one fairuse image per character page.

Firstly the admin revert wared on orphaning two fair use images used in Keiichi Morisato without a discussion. He later speedy-deleted the two images he revert warred on. His delete came after his 3rd revert.

"Image:Keiichi Morisato (Oh My Goddess! Manga).png": fair-use orphan, one of three images being used to illustrate one single character

"Image:Keiichi Morisato (Adventures of Mini-Goddess).png": fair-use orphan, one of three images being used to illustrate one single character

Afterwards, he edited a heavy-use template accordingly causing havoc on many articles and practicaly orphaning many images.

Furthermore he has threatened to block me. In addition he has full protected the template.

Aside from Oh My Goddess! related aricles, user has removed fair use images such as this which in my view is clearly approporate since it is the historic logo.

--Cat out 20:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That infobox had four fair-use images in it to identify a single character. The infobox (up until I removed them) had capacity for nine. This fails WP:FUC #3 and #8 miserably. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. It contributes significantly to the topic.

• Keiichi having and maintaining Lind's an angel is one of the most signigicant events involving the character. Hence it meets #8. I can make a detailed analysis per fair use imaged used on OMG articles here but I'd rather write that in the actual articles.
• The style of the series drawing was altered significantly on the past two decades. Having an image per animation generation is only approporate. Featured article Superman for instance has multiple fair use images. Hence it meets #3.
  • Furthermore I'd like to add #3 of FUC does not mean ther has to be one and only one image.

--Cat out 21:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is important to remember what our ultimate goals here are. We are creating a free content, freely redistributable encyclopedia. The use of non-free images detracts from that, and are only acceptable when absolutely necessary. I think AMIB correctly identified an instance in which they weren't absolutely necessary. --Cyde Weys 21:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is, when are they absolutely necessary, and when aren't they? And who determines this? People Powered 22:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Different editors decide when the photos are needed or not needed, but there is no set rule on what is "allowed" and what is "not allowed." If there is a short article with many fair use photos, some can be removed. But if there is a long article with maybe two fair use images, none might need to be removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also important to understand that we are an encyclopedia and illustrations are necesary. The procedure of weather or not an image qualifies under fair use is not revert warring, speedy deleting the images in question, threatening with blocks, and etc...

--Cat out 21:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I threatened CCat with a block when he said that he refused to discuss the infobox on talk, and was only waiting for 24 hours to expire so he could go back to reverting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Your first talk post started with a "WTF"... --;Cat out 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think discovering that an infobox has eight parameters for eight different images merits a WTF. How huge would that infobox be? Yikes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are really serious about discussing this, I'd like to see some evidence of good faith. How aboult undeleting those two images and reverting the template the way it was. Images can be deleted later on at the end of the discussion assuming thats the outcome. --Cat out 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that, as it is a copyright issue, this cannot be done unless the images are proven to meet the criteria in WP:FUC, which has not yet been done yet.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Cyde -- we should use fair use images minimally. We can't have galleries, and don't need to illustrate every tiny detail - to be safe (and remain encyclopedic), the idea of one or two fair use images per article is pretty safe. Anything more goes against both safety and is overdoing it, especially for these kinds of articles. --Improv 00:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To give anyone passing by an idea of the sort of "differences" being illustrated by these many redundant images, I invite someone to consider Image:Skuld (Ah! My Goddess The Movie).png and Image:Skuld (Ah! My Goddess TV).png, both of which were, up until recently, in the infobox for Skuld (Oh My Goddess!). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

For one her skin color is darker in the move... The uniform she is wearing is significantly different as well. The fact that she is flying itself is en entierly important ilustration. Skuld throughout the manga and TV series did not display much of a magic tallent. --Cat out 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree entirely with AMIB. Overuse of fair use images within an infobox is not acceptable and does fall foul of WP:FUC #3 and #8. If we allow such things to occur then it is simply opening the floodgates to potential copyright infringement problems.

It comes down to whether or not those images are significant enough to be included. If they are then they should be included within the article along with, as AMIB states, commentary (which should explain why they are significant). Doing it via infoboxes does not allow for such commentary.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that images were deleted without a discussion. I can put the images outside the infobox with ease however a wikipedia bug is making me hesitate. Section edit links are misaligned when multiple thumbnail images are used.

That still does not explain the two deletions.

--Cat out 21:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you've got in mind some use for the first image deleted, I'd be happy to undelete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because one of them was nothing more than a shadow. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Which was actualy a very very notable thing. Thats keiichis only appearance in the mini serries. But perhaps you are right, mentioning him being a mere shadow can be done with thext... :/ Still the manga image should be fine. --Cat out 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to have an image of every single cameo appearance every character makes ever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read my post. --Cat out 22:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I read it. You might notice that Ash Kechum, while overburdened with images, doesn't and shouldn't have images of his cameo appearances in Pokémon Chronicles or the various pre-movie shorts, where his absence is conspicuous. That cameo appearance can simply be described with prose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt explain why you deleted the manga image. --Cat out 16:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've fully protected {{Infobox Oh My Goddess! character}}, as Dynamo ace (talk · contribs) was reverting to a version with all eight image parameters. I invite review of this protection, as my role is a bit complicated; his revert also removed a ton of work I did to remove meta-templates from the larger template, so I rolled back to the last version with no edits from me other than the removal of the excess images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Cyde here. AMIB did the right thing, indeed. Fair use images should be minimally used. I see no reason for decoration of the article pages with unneeded images. I suggest that User:Cool Cat must discuss on relevant talk pages before reverting the actions of an administrator an established user. In this case, AMIB's warning came as highly warranted. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Support AMIB. Good call. Nandesuka 12:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I see. The complaint is that AMIB is very very closed to a discussion and that he is taking actions without a discussion to the point of endorsing his actions by using admin tools. His actions on the template have nothing to do with copyrights since the template itself is released under GNU.

Weather each fair use image is approporate or not should be investigated on a case by case basis. The "number" of images used is irrelevant, few is of course better and 2-5 is what I'd call "few". The copyright issues can be subject to a debate and this isnt the approporate place for that.

A further note. AMIB being an administrator means absolutely nothing to me. Wikipedia is an anti-elitist comunity, infact that is the foundation of our comunity.

--Cat out 16:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey you are right about the administrator part. But please respect consensus and discussions. Happy editing. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please consider trusting the good faith judgement of other editors. If it is not blindingly obvious that the unfree media satisfies our Wikipedia:Fair use criteria to the casual observer, that is a problem. Jkelly 22:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support AMIB. Also like to point out that few is contextual. Hiding Talk 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Durrus and District History

Hi. Durrus adds very much to Durrus and District History (all is made by him). The page grows uneccessarily long and it is difficult to read. What is the policy on such edits? --Kristod 20:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You should explain to the user the need for concision and avoiding historically-trivial content. Otherwise, if it's still too long, it can be split to subarticles. But first, it needs a major cleanup. The problem with single purpose edits is that they usually involve a failure to observe the standards set for Wikipedia entries, so this needs to be pointed out to the editor (i.e. s/he should at least review a few history of articles). El_C 00:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

talk: Chatham Borough, New Jersey

I have been editing this article on Chatham, New Jersey and the one for Chatham Township. I am running into someone who resorts to vandalism of a chart in Wikipedia to "prove his point" -- what is my recourse?

This Wikipedia image that lists the communities in Morris County and shows them on a map, directory to Morris County communities was altered just a few minutes ago by you to read as you wish it to... that is vandalism and I will report it if you do not correct it -- your behavior is pathetic and unprofessional.

O rly? I'd call it professional, actually. I find errors and I fix them. The Census bureau does not know of a town by the name of Chatham, NJ. So you're just making something up. Go ahead and report it. —lensovet–talk – 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

your signature and time stamp are on the changes to the chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

I said, go ahead and report me —lensovet–talk – 20:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment:The Census Bureau should not be used as a standard on New Jersey geography; they do not understand it, and never have. I don't pretend to know Morris County well enough to know whether Chatham is common usage there. Septentrionalis 15:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute - not something requiring admin attention. Stop attacking each other and just write out the fact that the name 'Chatham' often gets used to describe what might more precisely be called 'Chatham borough', 'Chatham township', and/or BOTH of those together. Put a nice explanation like that on each page, have 'Chatham, NJ' itself as a disambiguation page to the two articles, and off you go. If you can't manage that... see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Or just meet down at the train station and duke it out under the mulberry trees. :] --CBD 17:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

CBD, I know you're only making a joke here, but not too long ago two people attempted to settle a flame war in a shopping mall parking lot, with lethal results. (I'd hope that Wikipedians would be too smart to imitate this as a means to resolve conflicts, but some days I have my doubts.) -- llywrch 19:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry. I thought it was too absurd to actually be contemplated (i.e. fisticuffs over what the name 'Chatham' refers to), but as the link you cite shows... the world can always be just a little more absurd than you thought it could. --CBD 13:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry too. Now we can all feel nostalgic for the good old days of just a few weeks ago, when the worst that anyone could expect to happen in a flame war is that someone gets banned from Wikipedia for incivility or threats. :( -- llywrch 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The battle should be in the spring. I do not want to participate or even watch. I want to eat all the mulberries I can get ahead of the birds -- it has been a (long ) lifetime habit to wait for them to turn from green, to white, to purple... then eat all within reach! The town? Chatham, New Jersey -- renowned for the best mulberries along the entire railroad, and the reason that Chatham Township never had a "town"! Revert the name, this is nonsense, borough is a definiton of the form or government, the borough of -- you guessed it -- Chatham -- since the 1800s when a village called Chatham withdrew from a township along with two other villages that were along the new railroad -- and population increased greatly in all three. Read the history if you must -- resort to the facts -- seems to be a novel idea among some of the participants in this dispute, but it still remains a handy tool for people building articles in an encyclopedia!

--- and --- in order to get all the discussion on one page most of this has been moved to the article that I recommend be returned to Chatham, New Jersey, please continue there...

Possible Self Promotion that has existed for almost two years

Section removed; please refer to AFD if you want it deleted. This has absolutely nothing to do with administrators. Ral315 (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mass external linking to libcom.org

Hi everyone, I just noticed the contributions of Catch (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who has added only external links to the site Libcom in articles since October 7. The libcom group describes themselves as "a small collective of libertarian communists based in and around London", and maintain "a library archive of historical and theoretical writings from a class struggle perspective." [33]. I've rolled back all of Catch's external link edits, but now I'm too sure if I acted too hastily considering a linksearch for libcom.org turns up 339 links to the site in Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikipedia:External links states that preference should be given to open directories, so are we meant to tolerate the wholesale linking to such partisan web directories when they're not being cited as an article reference? --  Netsnipe  ►  21:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you've taken the correct course of action. El_C 00:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the 339 other links? --  Netsnipe  ►  09:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like spam, personally. Kilo•T 15:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed three instances where Catch was only correcting a broken link and your fix actually re-broke the link: Marxist Humanism, Raya Dunayevskaya, and Johnson-Forest Tendency. I think all of those links were acceptable, since they linked to articles by the people discussed in the Wiki entries. Oops, forgot signature. Franklin Dmitryev 18:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I updated several external links to libcom.org because it's been updated to a new structure and several were broken (i.e. more than about 30 iirc, and none originally added by me), while I was doing it, I browsed from those articles and noticed others where relevant links might be added. As stated by a previous poster, most are to articles or biographies of individuals - often the only on-line version available (or at all) and on subjects where they may often be very little material. I therefore do not consider them to be spam and am disappointed that the time I spent correcting broken links has been wasted by what seems to be to be over-zealous editing. -- oops, had to learn how to sign: Catch 17:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username?

Does anyone think that the username WikiTruth (talk · contribs) is inappropriate? He/she claims not to be associated with Wikitruth.info, but I think it would be a good idea for the person to change usernames...any thoughts? —Khoikhoi 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this is... truthfully... a clearly case of a WP:POINT-violative user name and should be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 00:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a case of WP:POINT? The user signed up in December 2005, over four months before wikitruth.info came into being. You're indef blocking someone because a website came along later and used their name? Mexcellent 00:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, was not claiming WP:POINT. I do, however, think it would (now) prove difficult for the user to operate effectively with such a wikisensitive username. This will probably help him/her in the long run. Note that the account only has 30-or so edits. El_C 00:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It certainly would be hard now, since he's been blocked through no fault of his own. Why not let it go until it actually becomes a problem? This kind of action is what turns people off to contributing. Why don't you suggest a username change and guide him through the process, rather than just blocking him? Or better yet, just leave him be, since he hasn't caused even the slightest amount of trouble. Mexcellent 00:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That the User:WikiTruth account predates the Wikitruth website is of no consequence (though it is an obvious indicator of the user's good intent) with respect to the inadvertant harrassment the user is likely to suffer in the future, thereby eliminating needless friction. I think my indefinite block note reflects this (i.e. no blame is assigned to the user in any way). Choosing a different username should not be a great undertaking. But perhaps the block was mis-placed. Feel free to overturn it and attend to the matter as you see fit. El_C 01:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, I think you should unblock him so he at least has the chance to keep his contributions and continue editing, rather than making someone start all over again. — Moe 03:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he's an editor in good standing. Suggesting a name change before an indef block would have been nice. Rx StrangeLove 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There's only 30-odd edits, starting over didn't seem a big deal. Feel free to overturn my block, though. El_C 04:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with El C. It's only 30 edits. Unless some of them are of major importance (extensive clean up, saving an article from deletion, ect.), starting a new account isn't a big deal.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 05:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Meh, 30 edits or not, I still would have liked to see a warning or something before immediate action was taken. It's up to you really.. — Moe 05:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think the user needed to be warned about anything, s/he didn't do anything wrong. El_C 05:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Put yourself in his position, you even said he didn't do anything wrong, don't you think he's going to think he did something wrong? He had the account since last December. I would think I did something wrong if I was mostly inactive and I came back one day to find I couldn't edit anymore. This could potentially drive a user away from Wikipedia. All thats left to consider if it's really a good-faith contributor your blocking indef or not, but the ball's in your court, so to speak.. — Moe 05:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see why s/he should feel s/he did anything wrong. I did not think my note suggested wrongdoing. Anyway, I left the matter to the discretion of at least two users whom I place confidence in (Mexcellent and Rx StrangeLove), so I'm inclined to do nothing and rather have either of them take the lead from now on. El_C 06:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked this user and asked him/her to get a username change. This user has made valuable contributions and has received an award from another user for some of it! Wikipedia:Changing username is a perfectly good option. How would you like to be blocked because some website was created with a similar name as your username?--Konst.able 08:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like it just fine! Anyway, 30 edits — I make that in an hour. Just didn't think it was a big deal. El_C 08:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

i.e. I simply did not think anyone with 30 edits would bother to go through the process of changing their username. I sure know I wouldn't. El_C 08:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I counted 57 edits. Well, users who are not as experienced in all this would probably not find it a nice thing to get blocked. I see no harm in him having it until he applies to have it changed. It's not like it's Randomvandal (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) or Weiner (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log).--Konst.able 09:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I should have paid closer attention, that's significantly more edits than I thought. El_C 09:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't block the ip, just that specific username, so I thought reregistering was to be a flash. El_C 09:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, check this out... re User:Tell the Wikitruth

Probably worth noting that per the above I blocked Tell the Wikitruth this evening, and posted {{Usernameblock}} on their talk page. However the interesting part? Their next edit... Patted myself on the back for that one! :) Glen 12:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think is connected to the above case. It's clearly not the same user.. If WikiTruth (talk · contribs) was a Blu Aardvark sockpuppet, he probably would have been more active and would have (probably) vandalized something. WikiTruth was a constructive editor. I'm not too associated with "Wikitruth sockpuppets", but it seems like newer one's would be associated with the website. User:WikiTruth was here on Wikipedia before the website even opened, so it's hard to say if he is associated with them. — Moe 16:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh no I wasn't implying any corelation between the two other than a coincidental stroke of luck that this topic was being discussed (and thus Mr Aardvark blocked) Glen 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No user should be blocked just because their name is similar to the name of a website that scrutinizes Wikipedia. Doing this only advertises the site. I didn't know this site existed until it was mentioned here. At most this user should have been warned that a few Wikipedians might be confused and perhaps offended by the user name "Wikitruth." Blocking him for such a silly reason only reinforces the idea that Wikipedia is as messed up as [wikitruth.info] says it is. I would prefer that the user name "Wikitruth" go to a good user that helps improve Wikipedia as opposed to just sitting as an indefinitely blocked account forever. Jecowa 08:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're saying the name is a coincidence, that's absurd. The above phrase was created specifically as a way to troll wikipedia. --InShaneee 14:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe Jecowa is referring to User:Wikitruth, not the Blu Aardvark sock. -- nae'blis 21:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Go to urbandictionary.com and look up Wikitruth. It refers to Wikiality and not the wikitruth website. Anomo 21:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User User:Nlu abused his administration

User:Nlu reverted article blindly without reading the article (Baedal, Hwanguk). These two nations are myth, so hairwizard91 added the category of mythical nation. But, Nlu reverted it without reading it.

In addition, Nlu's adminstrative editing was very weird. Wiman Joseon was edited by hairwizard91 with cited references. However, Nlu reverted to the previous version with no references, Nlu added the Wiman Joseon to the categories of "Category:Articles lacking sources", and then Nlu semi-protected the article. The edited version by hairwizard91 has more reference and is confident. But, the reverted version by Nlu has no sources and cited references. He did not followed NPOV especially about the korean history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.210.12.141 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A check indicated that the above IP is an open proxy. Blocked indefinitely, and I have no doubt that it was the same user as Hairwizard91. --Nlu (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that User:Nlu has abused his administrator rights a little by blocking User:Hairwizard91 for vandalism. I don't know if Hairwizard91 was using sockpuppets or not, but he was definitely not vandalizing, placing non-NPOV statements, or placing spam into the two articles mentioned above. Consider this edit in which Nlu removes a source added by Hairwizard91 and attributes it to spam. I don't think he even read the source before he removed it. The source he removed was an English translation of the book that these Mythological cities come from. Nlu also continues to remove the Category:Korean_mythology tags from these two articles. In my opinion Hairwizard91 should be unblocked immediately and the semi-protected state of the Baedalguk article removed. Jecowa 08:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote

There is still a lot of argument on its talk page that this cannot be a guideline because (1) it didn't follow the proper process for making guidelines, despite the fact that we have no such process, (2) people allege that Wikipedia uses voting all the time (such as in AFD) and therefore we may not advise against voting mentality, or (3) it is said that Wikipedia should adopt more formal mechanisms related to strict voting and that therefore we may not write down current practice.

Voting mentality is harmful. Calling for straw polls at arbitrary times is also harmful, as it tends to preclude discussion and compromise. Not using (majority) voting is a long-standing practice. An essay against voting is not going to help because most new users ignore essays as "just a random user's opinion".

I would really appreciate some experienced people giving feedback on the subject on the talk page here; last time I asked, I had about a dozen admins chiming in but their words have basically been ignored, so please try again. >Radiant< 08:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Now rewritten from scratch in an effort to better describe current practice, Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote/Draft. Comments welcome. >Radiant< 09:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that the negative in the title is a problem. If it were "Discuss more, count less" or something, there would be a greater likelihood of overcoming resistance. We do vote, and we do discuss, and our discussions carry with them votive matters and judgments, so it's sort of impossible to tell anyone not to vote. So long as "don't vote" can be read, by either those who hate "process" or those who believe in "process," as "Do as you will shall be the whole of the law," it's going to be a monumental effort to try to move forward. On substance, we might all even agree that we take into consideration all voices, compare them to policy, and then act in a way most likely to generate consent, but if that is called a vote or a discussion will enable bad actors on either side. For every person wanting to halt proceedings to say, "But you failed by 69/31%," there is someone wanting to say, "Notavote! I am elect." In other words, the wording is very important and highly charged, even if the actual ideal practice is entirely rational and beneficial. Geogre 15:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I hear alot of people complaiing about voting, but all the "votes" I see around here are not votes. They are polls so that people can clarify their opinions. In most cases it is a boolean problem siuch as featured picture, approve or don't, or AfD, delete or don't.

Even then, the tally is not treated strictly mathematically, but instead the value of the arguement is taken into account. It seems to be that there is not voting going an here and that we are, and have been, acting by consensus. HighInBC 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• My point is that you need to define "vote" and then understand the connotations of "vote" for all users. The arguments aren't about votes. They're about what votes mean connotatively. I am against any AfD, for example, where people say "delete" or "keep" and then sign. That's a vote. I think everyone has to provide a rationale. Having done that, it's not merely a vote in a strict sense, but a vote coupled with a discussion. On the other hand, some people want no restraint on the actions of those who they consider "higher up." Thus, they might cite "not a vote" as a justification for deleting an article against an overwhelming consensus to keep on an AfD. (I'm sticking to AfD as the least controversial. It all gets worse from there.) Therefore, I might say that "AfD is not a vote" and mean one thing, and another person might say "AfD is not a vote" and mean something almost 180 degrees from me. Similarly, if I see someone trying to codify "we do not vote," I might be so resentful or fearful of those 180 degrees from me that I oppose it, even though, in essence, we are almost all in agreement. Geogre 14:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to intimidate me

[34][35][36][37] these are attempts to intimidate me because I edit under my full name, and anyone can find this using a web search. I have not commited vandalism or pulled out of mediation twice. Would an admin be so kind as to remove these from my talk page history? --Mihai cartoaje 12:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be really dimwitted today as I fail to see the intimidation or even the slightest insinuation re the use or knowledge of personal information... can you please clarify? To me it seems the comments are civil and well intentioned... Glen 12:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My username is my full name. The edits have pejorative edit summaries. Also, what is written in the edits is false. I have not commited any vandalism and I have not failed to complete two mediations. I also have not removed content from Wikipedia.

Because I edit using my full name, anyone can find my talk page using a web search for my name.--Mihai cartoaje 12:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether the allegations in the edits are false is a different issue from what you are raising here. As far as I can tell, these are requests for you to stop particular edits, and there are no threats, veiled or otherwise, to affect you personally outside of Wikipedia. Like Glen, I fail to understand why the ability of people to find your talk page would amount to intimidation. --khaosworks (talk * contribs) 13:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The edit summaries are not pejorative in the slightest and in fact you have been taken to mediation twice and pulled out: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-12 Schizophrenia and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-29 Schizophrenia. You may want to rethink your claims. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It was me who asked for the first mediation. The second mediation was not correctly summarised. The mediator wrote this [38] after which I commented this [39] and after that I was not asked any more questions and it ended like this [40]. --Mihai cartoaje 13:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You conveniently skipped this comment

Mihai, it's a discussion not an interview. There are points above which you have not answered. This all sounds like delaying tactics to me. - Vaughan 08:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

While you did indeed start the first mediation the closer of it states you requested the mediation end. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well if he's making false claims about your involvement in mediation then I guess that's something, but the edits (and the 4 edit summaries: Added warning about balnking [sic] text on schizophrenia page / schizophrenia / fix header / restore my comments) do not really constitute an attempt to intimidate you.

I have left them a note requesting more information and will let you know, however in the meantime I strongly suggest you head along to our changing username request page as you do seem very concerned about your anonymity (or feelings re lack thereof) Thanks Glen 13:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no threats in those diffs nor pejorative comments. The messages you got are standard messages. Also the use of your full name is a decision that you make, if it makes you uncomfortable close your current account and create a new one with a nickname. HighInBC 04:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How do I close my current account? --Mihai cartoaje 12:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is what you want: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Inaproporate username? User:Kurdt Kobain

Since Kurdt Kobain is a recently deceased person, I think it is a poor choice of a username. --Cat out 16:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Recently deceased? Kurt Cobain has been dead for 12 years - I'm guess this is a fan (Kurdt Kobain was a mispelling of his name on an album cover). Are you suggesting that someone will think that this is the ghost of Cobain or something?

--Charlesknight 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Jesus, User:George Washington, User:Jon Stewart have all been blocked or would be blocked if created. By convention famous people are poor choice to be usernames and are often not descriptive enough. --Cat out 16:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

12 years isn't that long, and Curt is still popular now, with material released quite recently. The name was used by Cobain in autographs as well as on an album. Imo it's inappropriate per WP:U. Deizio talk 16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, these aren't exactly comparable to Kurt Cobain. Jesus is a religious figure, and WP:UN treats names based on religious figures differently than names based on other people. User:George Washington was a sock of a vandal (and I don't see anything in his block log). Jon Stewart is still alive. jgp ^T_C 16:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we'd be better of if he volunteerly chose a different username (someone should explain why in greater detail to him) but in the event he doesnt what should be done? --Cat out 16:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

But isn't the convention with real people to stop confusion with the living? What's the problem if someone has been dead for at least ten years? Should I get a new username? --Charlesknight 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Checking WP:U it says Names of well-known living or recently deceased people, such as Chuck Norris or Ken Lay, unless you are that living person. If you are, say so on your user page. - Kurt Conbain is neither living or recently deceased, I don't see any problem with this username under WP:U. --Charlesknight 17:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And his name was neither Kurdt nor Kobain. If it's not acceptable, would Kort Kurbain be? How about Curt Chilblain? References to names are rather different from use of the actual name. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe he ever signed his name as either of those, or was listed as either of those on an album. This isn't exactly a serious contravention of WP:U, but if Cool Cat wants to have a quiet word in his ear and point out the guidelines I think that would be fine. Deizio talk 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am merely exploring the issue. Mind the '?' on the section header.

I do not see a User:Charles Knight nor do I see his relevance. I think it would be prudent to disalow historic figures to be usernames. I'd rather not be editing an article about Che discussing it with User:Che.

--Cat out 20:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

and that's why you rushed off and blocked the username because you were just "discussing it". That's a bullshit move. You asked, many of us said "no it's no problem" but hey, you've got your jackboots and had to use them. --Charlesknight 08:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, futher investigation reveals that (as far as I can determine) you are not an admin - so why are you placing templates that (falsely I assume) tell users that they are blocked? --Charlesknight 08:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

All you had to do was find the block log which would tell you all you need to know. Personally I see nothing at all wrong with the username. I don't think Kurt Cobain is in any danger of being impersonated or defamed at this point, which is the spirit of the username policy. Grandmasterka 08:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone decided to block him and I notified the person getting blocked so as to avoid alienating the individual. --Cat out 10:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

YOu can ask anyone at Arbcom and they will tell you policy isnt meant to be followed by the letter, that is for wikilawyering, its meant to follow the spirit of the policy, and I do not believe this name would be violating that spirit since its not spelled correctly and well the man is dead over 10 years now. If they start editing the Kurt Cobain article in a defamatory way then ban them, else just leave it as such, the person isnt living and its not even spelled right. --NuclearZer0 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont see a reason to involve the arbcom. --Cat out 13:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Who said we should? I am making a point that policy = spirit, not letter of the law. As pointed out above I also do not feel this person is violating that spirit. --NuclearZer0 14:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Is dead Cobain (misspelled) to be treated more reverently than dead Milne? (Note User:AA_Milne.) A rhetorical question, I suppose, as I really don't care. -- Hoary 13:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Kerr avon

User is posting legal threats, and what he purports are real life details of another user at Talk:Derek Smart. I have told him to stop issuing legal threats and to stop playing internet detective. JBKramer 18:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Derek Smart article has been a source of edit warring for a long time. A major contributor has been Supreme_Cmdr [41] who is a SPA [42]. Numerous discussions on the Derek Smart talk page have centered around the discussion as to if Supreme_Cmdr is Smart himself[43]. As such when Supreme_Cmdr's IP address was posted on his page, a traceroute revealed that both Supreme_Cmdr and Derek Smart have the same ISP. Given the background to the above long discussions to the identity of Supreme_Cmdr, I felt that posting the above information would be relevant.

However once JBKramer pointed out that is not acceptable according to wiki guidlines, I have indicated by willingness to stop posting the above information about Supreme_cmdr.

The legal threats were not against the wikipedia, it was said in a matter of fact way as regarding to Supreme_Cmdr's serious allegation of racism and racist discrimination [44] against me. No action was taken against Supreme_cmdr, and I was feeling bitter about it. I come from a poor third world country and I am not at all capable of legal action against anyone, so that should put that matter to rest as well.

Kerr avon 18:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know who this 'higher authority' he claims to have referred this to is, as that alone makes me think an indef block is in order. --InShaneee 19:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The 'higher authority' was Cowman109 [45] [46]. I see that it was my choice of wording 'higher authority' means probably god to the westerners, whereas to us it is exactly as it suggests indicating someone senior. No offense was meant to anyone.Kerr avon 23:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was more concerned you meant some legal body. I have a feeling if you had appealed to God I wouldn't have much say in the matter. No harm done. --InShaneee 13:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Kerr avon has compounded his error by repeating the allegation here. We do not attempt to "out" the personal identities of users. Furthermore ... as someone previously uninvolved, I had a good look at this article and its talk page. The article needed cleaning up for such things as grammar, spelling and style, which have been neglected while edit warring has been going on about peripheral issues to do with the the fact that the person who is the subject of the article has evidently been foolish enough to become involved in on-line debates defending his game products against the criticisms of certain games fans. Metamagician3000 11:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational Response Squad

I closed this deletion debate early after massive sockpuppetry. Of the 80-odd contributions it received in the 36 hours it was on AfD there were about eight good-faith contributions.

In particular there were a number of accounts with nonzero edit histories that just happened to crop up in this massively sockpuppeted vote. I am wondering whether this organisation has actively infiltrated Wikipedia with sleeper accounts, or whether this is coincidence; and also what other action if any we should take. (Of course some of the accounts listed below may be good-faith users who just happened on the discussion). The Land 20:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Tsharpfilm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Infidelaholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Plynn9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LacunaSerenity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Livecontra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Solar II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dumpydooby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PandaKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moloth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hierophantasmagoria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cbenard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• I don't know anything about this (though I agree it looks incredibly fishy), but you may want to brace yourself for a possible sock-o-rama DRV, since you closed an AfD in which you also !voted. --Aaron 00:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Aye, probably should have taken it here for someone else to nix, rather than doing so yourself. In any case, this is indeed incredibly fishy. Especially if it continues to a DRv, I'd take it to the sock board or to CU (code D). I personally tend away from assuming good faith in this case purely because of the nature of the "votes" made. [47], [48], [49], etc., all sound like so many cases of this sort that I've seen before. In this case, with one outright admitting that they're from the organization, it's even worse. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• The article was about a radio show, so it's easy for them to tell people to go and !vote in a discussion. The ones that already had wikipedia accounts (active or not) would've been more inclined to go and comment in the first place. Thinking that a small group of people has been actively making sleeper accounts for no apparent reason (except to vote when an article gets tagged for deletion, 10 days after the fact) seems really unlikely. - Bobet 10:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

On reflection you're probably right. The Land 15:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Abusing Nlu's administrative right

User:Nlu have abused his or her administrator's right when editing the Korean histories.

1. Especially, the editing of Wiman Joseon by hairwizard91 is more confident and reasonble because it includes more references. But Nlu have reverted the article of Wiman Joseon to the previous one, which has NO reference, and then you added the category of Category:Articles lacking sources. His or her editing of the articles about Korean histories were not fair and violate the POV.
   
2. For Korean History in Manchuria, hairwizard91 added the category Category:History of Manchuria and Category:Korea , but Nlu reverted it again. I think that Korean History in Manchuria is related to Category:History of Manchuria and Category:Korea. He considers that Korean History in Manchuria is not Korean history and History of Manchuria.
   
3. For Baedal, it is myth nation of Korean history. So, hairwizard91 added the category of Category:Korean mythology. But, Nlu removed the category of Korean mythology.
   
4. For Hwanguk. Hwanguk is also mythical nation. So, Hairwizard91 added Category:Korean mythology to Hwanguk. But Nlu revert it without even reading the article.
   
5. For Goguryeo, his editing does not follow the rule of POV. As everyone already knows it, Goguryeo is still controversal nation that is Korean or China. But, he added the following sentencen. The term 'Goguryeo' is the revised term based on the changes in the law of Romanizing Korean language,Hangul, in 2000. The Chinese pronounciation of the word 'Goguryeo' is 'Gao Gouli'. But since most people in the world recognize the Goguryeo kingdom by the name 'Koguryo,' the old way of Romanizing Goguryeo, the Chinese utilized, for their benefit, the Korean pronounciation 'Koguryo' in order to register Goguryeo tomb sites as Chinese in 2004 and to validate their assertion that Goguryeo kingdom is part of Chinese history, not Korean.This sentence is too subjective, and should not be used if following the rule POV. Because hairwizard91 removed his sentence, the artifle of goguryeo is semi-protected. It is not the right way of an administrator.
   
6. For Dongyi, Hairwizard91 added the historical Chinese records with correct citations. But, Nlu blindly remmoved the article with correct citation.
   
7. For Nangnang, there are actually two things; one is Nangnang nation, and the other is Lelang Commandery. Hairwizard91 added two redirections for Nangnang, but Nlu modified the redirection only to Lelang Commandery, which is established by ancient China. Nangnang nation was established by Korean. He may not want to progress the article about Korean history.
   
8. For Jin (Korean history), I dont understand the article is semi-protected. Nlu have justed blindly semi-protected the article. The sentence added by 67.38.248.16 is followed the history book of Joseon Sango Sa.

As my examination of Nlu editing, he or she removed and reverted the article if the new sentence or content is the Korean history that is not taught in China. He did not follow the rule of POV...

Nlu have prevented the article of Korean history from progressing further... Nlu do not edit the article with POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.41.164 (talk • contribs)

This user has no edits outside of Nlu's user talk and WP:ANI. Something smells like old socks. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont have any account now. And my IP is dynamically assigned.--68.252.41.164 01:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See #Hairwizard91 and #User User:Nlu abused his administration above. To the anonymous user: this is not the Wikipedia complaints department; if you have a dispute with another user then please engage in the dispute resolution process, unless you have concerns which specifically relate to either:

• actions requiring administrative attention;
• administrative actions;

in which case I suggest you rework your message to address only these concerns. Please do not simply repeat the message. --bainer (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Isnt it possible to write about the abuse of an administrator in this site ? It is not long since I have used wiki. (I made my account now) --Goldwing999 02:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have concerns relating specifically to use of the administrative tools (deleting pages, protecting pages etc), then yes you can mention them here. However if your dispute merely relates to editing, then you need to use the dispute resolution process. --bainer (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're blatantly violating WP:SOCK. Sit out your block, or face longer blocks. --Nlu (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I didnt know the rule. Sorry but I made my new account because Thebainer requested it. Before he or she requested it, I did not make any account.

Also, I am not sure why I cannot make new ID. The previous ID is blocked permanently. Is it possible to make new ID when the previous is blocked permanently?

Moreover, this is talking about POV. Dont make vague the POV because of SOCK

Please re-read WP:POV. Wikipedia is a cooperative project, not a project where someone who is the loudest or the most prolific "wins." You've been doing nothing but imposing what your own views are on since you've come on. You've obviously got good things to contribute to the project, but you need to be able to edit in a cooperative manner.

As to your inability to create a new user ID -- why will you need to? The block on Hairwizard91 (talk · contribs) is only for 24 hours, and once 24 hours have elapsed, you can again edit. Again, creating new IDs for the purpose of evading blocks is a violation of WP:SOCK. For now, the inability to create a new ID stems from the block on Hairwizard91 (precisely to prevent this type of misuse). If you want to have a "clean start," wait for the block to expire, and then follow the procedure at WP:CHU. --Nlu (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nlu did revert the article even when it is additional explanation and nobody has a opposite opinion. If the added content is additional explanation and there is no controversal, it should be kept until someone has the opposite opinion.

You said the cooperation. But, anybody even you did not discuss about the content. They were only reverting the article. Many chinese usually reverted the articles when it is not equal to what they have learned. There have been no discussion. As you know there are more larger chinese than korean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.20.209 (talk • contribs)

Don't try to bring ethnicity into this. Your actions are no more appropriate by a person of any other ethnicity. --Nlu (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Racially stereotyping of editors when accusing them of POV "abuse" is not going to help your cause in the slightest. Daniel.Bryant 04:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This user has since resorted to Wiki-stalking me while evading the block -- perhaps validly adding {{sources}} tags on articles I started, but then adding spurrious {{fact}} tags on facts in fact established by the sources even after sources were added. Assistance in countering the stalking would be greatly appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The user has now taken it to vandalize Chinese history articles, whether I had been significantly involved or not, to remove images. Again, help in combatting him/her would be greatly appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As it turns out, I've been forced to block the following ranges for three hours each:

• 68.249.220.x
• 68.75.x.x
• 68.76.x.x
• 68.77.x.x

All of these are AT&T dialup addresses, apparently. Obviously, I'd rather not block this many ranges, but there appeared to be no other way of stopping this user. Additional ideas would be appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not against NLU but you want cooperation and then ban the user, thats not really in the spirit of cooperating, you also sprotect an article without discussing it with the person you were keeping from the article, also not very in favor of discussion. I believe Wikipedia is a colaborative project, as such reverting an article without explanation on talk or even in the edit summary isnt really working in that spirit. Also since one article was sprotected, this is a matter for AN/I and not just mediation since it then involves admin tools, including the wide spread ban above to a anon user, who when asked to, made an account to discuss this issue here.

I guess the main question is, are they mythical nations, if so why remove the cat, if not then is there any proof? --NuclearZer0 13:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to reason with the user (see, in particular, the discussion on User talk:Nlu) after the user initially indicated that he/she was willing to abide by WP:SOCK. However, the user then resumed his/her disruptive behavior by in fact refusing to sit out the block, and further engaging in WP:POINT-violative behavior.

The reason why I reverted the user's edits was because he/she made so many, there is no way to go back and pick out the one or two good edits and let them stand. The user is effectively going, "I may have made a bundle of bad edits, but let my 1% of good edits stand!" Well, this is similar to the vandals who put in sneaky vandalism; there is no good way to distinguish the good with the bad. --Nlu (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Need help with some trolling

172.130.210.78 (talk · contribs) was blocked by Nishkid64 earlier today, but now the anon has returned as 172.130.181.150 (talk · contribs), whose first contribution was this edit, and the rest are a mix of trolling and insults. Here for example, he/she said the following:

BertilVidet, if you continue with this kind of (mis-) demenour, you will hear from your university where you are registered as a master's student. And, trust me, this is a promise.

Can someone please block this guy? He's probably the same person who caused Bertilvidet's userpage to be semi-protected. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

...and he's back as 172.163.2.61 (talk · contribs). —Khoikhoi 02:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, he's returned again as 172.128.27.44 (talk · contribs). —Khoikhoi 02:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Digimorph and spam

Someone may want to have a look at Digimorph (talk • contribs). I'm pretty sure his activity constitutes outright spam, but would rather have someone more experienced consider his contributions and possibly roll back his edits. Thanks. -- mattb @ 2006-10-16T01:27Z

Yes, that's definately spam. He's advertising his website (digimorph.org) through sections in various articles. —Khoikhoi 01:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also just realized his last edit was on March 22... —Khoikhoi 01:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing copyvios from www.marvunapp.com

Someone for marvunapp.com has been emailing WP:OTRS regarding copyvios from their web site. This is the third complaint we've received, this time regarding Captain Albion and Captain Airstrip-One. The pattern is that someone is paraphrasing using identical sentence and paragraph structure with only slightly different word choice. I'm sure there are more of these. Would someone like to get to the bottom of this and explain the facts of life to the perp? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Well, the source of the copyright infringement is User:Originalsinner, who created the Captain Airstrip-One article and expanded Captain Albion from a stub. Some of the text is identical to the original site, but it is paraphrased rather heavily. Originalsinner has been talked to about copyright in the past, and these are not recent infringements. There are probably more problems, but Originalsinner has thousands of edits, mostly minor without edit summaries. Someone take it from here? Mangojuice^talk 04:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Originalsinner about this, but from his contribution history, his track record of responding to comments has been very bad. When he went on editing without responding, I blocked him. I'm not going to be on WP all the time, so if anyone else comes across this, feel free to unblock if you can get a dialogue going, and are sure he understands about copyvios. Mangojuice^talk 20:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's worse that we thought:

> >
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/khlogstr.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KhL%CE%98G
> >
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrgo
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/orrgopre.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fangu
> > and this one isn't just the image but the text too
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix2/fangunightmare.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraa_the_Unhuman
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/kraaunhu.htm
> > and in the above case it seems clear to me Originalsinner has simply
> > abbreviated and slightly re-ordered the text from the Appendix page
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognescenti
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/cognoscentisd.htm
> >
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/groottta.htm (scroll down the page
> > for the image in question)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groot
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla-Man (image of the Ken Hale
> > Gorilla Man)
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/gorillam.htm (scroll down to see the
> > same image)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glob_%28comics%29
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix2/globtimmshulk.htm (again, scroll
> > down for the image)
> >
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/manphibi.htm
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manphibian
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dino_Manelli
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/manellidino.htm (scroll right down)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Wilson
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/wilsondu.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Sam_Sawyer
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/sawyersam.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Ralston
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/ralstonrobert.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinky_Pinkerton
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/pinkertonpercival.htm (again,
> > scroll down to see the same image)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abominable_Snowman_%28comics%29
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/abominab.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Jones_%28comics%29
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/jonesfred.htm (scroll down - the
> > irony here is he's copied the image of the wrong character, as this
> > isn't Fred Jones)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Larkin
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/larkinjerry.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Koenig
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/koenigeric.htm (scroll down again)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_Juniper
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/juniperjunior.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodshed_%28comics%29
> > comes from
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/bldshd.htm (scroll down)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestor_%28comics%29
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/avatrz.htm#ance
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundry_%28comics%29
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/avatrz.htm#foun
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lich_%28comics%29
> > same Appendix page listed above
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfist
> > Ditto
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Slasher
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/shadslsr.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kogar.gif
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/kogar.htm
> >
> > Then there's the text from the top of this page
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Originalsinner_Additions_F
> > comes from the various pages linked to here
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/master/mastguid.htm#Master
> >
> > He's also copying the bibliographies from marvunapp.com to Wikipedia
> >
> > And its not just the Appendix he likes to purloin things from. Try out
> > the Gorgolla image here
> > http://www.geocities.com/madscie/madscientist/atlasmonsters/gorgolla.jpg
> > which is part of this site
> > http://www.geocities.com/madscie/madscientist/marvel.html
> > and compare it to the one posted here by Originalsinner
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgolla
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gabejones-ww2.jpg
> > comes from
> > http://home.gate.net/~images/bios/jones.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:It-comics.jpg
> > http://www.marvel.com/universe/It%2C_The_Living_Colossus

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully support UninvitedCompany's indefinite block. Ral315 (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, don't bother blocking this IP since it belongs to a public library and I don't intend to sock puppet this thing. I needed a to give my view etc and so forth.

1) Last I checked nearly every comic book image on this site is a copyright violation. Also last time I checked, Jeff Christiansen (founder of marvunapp) doesn't own the images, Marvel does. Hence, why I said that they were from Marvel. Marvel = owner of pictures, not Jeff. Also I put the pictures up in good faith. I didn't realise it was gonna coz such a fuss. So listen up. Khlog - it was summarized somewhere else actually and extended it. It's not my fault that Khlog also has a page on the Appendix. I only got his bibliography using a mixture of the appendix and the chronology project. Ditto with Orrgo. Fangu, yes but I was changing that one back. It was to prove a point that he wasn't such a menial character. Kraa the Unhuman I did not abbreviate or slightly reorder. I extended it since that how he was summarized. As for the have the master guide on it. I was using it as storage as I was just bloody reading it. Correction, I used the bibliographies from marvunapp, marvel, the handbooks and the chronology project. How is this a copyvio? Good God are you not seeing the same site as I am. Everything is a violation. The summaries of episodes, the list of characters, pictures from the WWE which are property of the WWE. EVERYTHING! And like I said I didn't "purloin" anything from any other site without stated that the image was in fact owned by Marvel. Under fair use Marvel Comics are the owner, not the fansites I "purloined" them from. And I stated when uploading them that they were indeed from Marvel. But how about looking at the comic project properly, and you'll notice basically every image is taken from another site.

Having looked through a few of these examples, I can say that the issue is really fair use of images, not misuse of copyrighted text. All those images are appropriately marked as fair use: the question is whether or not Wikipedia is willing to defend that fair use now that someone is complaining. I wouldn't have made the indefinite block myself, but if it helps to appease Marvel while we clean this up, I think it's okay... and the Fangu case shows that Originalsinner is still violating copyright, it's not just something that happened 9 months ago. I myself think we have pushed fair use a little too far here. I think it's reasonable to include frames of comics in order to illustrate characters we write about... but using the same images as the Marvel Universe appendix over and over is not okay: there's creativity in the choice of which image we use, which we are also copying, and I don't see any fair use justification for that. Also, there's the issue of who actually owns the scan of the image, but I'm not sure if that matters. And this is Marvel we're talking about: the only thing they actually own are their copyrights -- we have to be careful dealing with them. Mangojuice^talk 12:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Are Marvel complaining, or just the person who initially scanned the images and placed them on the web? Any copyright violations of text from the www.marvunapp.com site should obviously be removed. The images, I'm a little less clear on. The site itself is, as far as I can see, a fansite. It's not affiliated with Marvel, and seems to claim no copyright on anything, although the copyright notice displayed there is badly worded. I guess I can see the problem with using the same images over and over, but I think it may be best to get a proper opinion on this. Hiding Talk 12:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just adding though, that we have written some guidance on the fair use of images sourced from comics, and we do guide that people should list the web-site they source the image from when they upload it, if they haven't scanned it themselves. Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright. Hiding Talk 12:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not the fair use images from Marvel. As pointed out, these are fair use and I don't think they pose a problem. The problem is the text. In at least some of the cases that I've investigated carefully, there has been a problem with paraphrased text that constitutes a copyvio. The fact that it is paraphrased makes it hard to find, because a google search comes up empty. But the sentence and paragraph structure is the same with only slight changes in word choice, in the cases I've seen, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that these have been copyvios. As I see it, that establishes the credibility of the complaints from marvunapp.com, and since Originalsinner has done nothing whatsoever except mutter obscenities in response to concerns, it is up to us to clean up the mess.

And that's time consuming because the only way to do it is go through each and every article marvunapp.com has complained about and try to look for parallel text in Originalsinner's contributions to it. In some cases we might conclude that there is enough departure from the original marvunapp.com text that there isn't a copyvio. In other cases we will have to decide whether to remove the affected text or revert to the pre-Originalsinner version, and either way there is still the potential problem of copyvios in the history.

I do want to make the point that marvunapp.com has already gone to considerable trouble to identify and communicate the cases they're aware of. While I realize that there may well be some false positives in their list, it really isn't their job to police our articles once they've established a pattern of copyvios.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I was the person who brought up the copyright violations and image pilfering, I hope no one minds if I chip in here.

Regarding the examples of plagiarism, I am happy that Wikipedia as a site deals with them and appreciate that its difficult to police the users. Its your choice to decide to do what you want with regards to blocking or not blocking Original Sinner; from where I stand though, I asked Wiki moderators to tell him to not take from the Appendix on multiple occasions, I have no reason to doubt this was indeed done, and he has persisted doing so. I'd rather not waste my time or anyone else's with having to constantly police his articles and request they be removed when and if he copies again, BUT I will do so if I have to.

Regarding Original Sinner's older edits. I don't expect any of you to have to go back through them. I accept there may well be more plagiarised material there, but I don't hold that against Wikipedia. I don't actively hunt through Wikipedia looking for plagiarism, but I do browse the site, and I know the Appendix style well enough to spot most cases of copying. If there's other stuff Original Sinner has posted in the past, leave it there for the moment, and I will find it sooner or later, and at that point flag it up for checking and removal.

On the images: as I've said EVERY time I have brought up images being taken from the Appendix, I accept that we don't own the copyright, Marvel does. However, while I generally don't mind the odd image being taken from another site, its the sheer extent of the copying from the Appendix which gets me. We don't maintain that site just so other sites (or their contributors) lazier than ours can plunder us willy nilly because they can't be bothered to do the work themselves. Its just plain incredibly rude, and I'd hope Wikipedia would be better than that. I'm sure Original Sinner knew he was being out of order taking so many images, based on his claiming the source was Marvel.com rather than the Appendix - "And I stated when uploading them that they were indeed from Marvel" - well, no he didn't because Marvel.com is a specific site, and while owned by them, is not the same as Marvel the comics company. That was, to me, a clear case of obfuscating where he got the images from, and I can think of only one reason to do that; he knew we'd not be happy about it. Can I force you to remove them under threat of legal action? Tricky, and I wouldn't want to go down that path even if I was certain I could (but fair use can fall down dependent on volume taken from another source, so I might have a case). But can I ask, as a simple case of good manners, for those images to be removed? Yes, and I am asking. If people want to use images from our site, then they can ask, and we usually give permission, so long as we get credited and it isn't a wholesale taking of every image they can lay their hands on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.174.51 (talk • contribs)

• Okay, I've deleted Fangu, because that was a blatant copyright violation, and I've also deleted User:Originalsinner_Additions_F since that was also copyright violation. I've edited all the images so that they reflect where they were sourced from, since that's the policy on Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 19:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing personal attacks and verbal abuse from User:Ernham

User Ernham is posting a personal attack on Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence [50]. This is only the latest of many personal attacks, attacks for which he was blocked a few days ago. For some reason, he seems unable or unwilling to understand. Is there anyone who can let him know what a personal atack is or isn't? This last post is bodering on the slanderous. Thanks in advance!--Ramdrake 03:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn - after re-reading the purpose of this page, I see that I'm not on the right page. Sorry for the inconvenience.--Ramdrake 22:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Fmaack and User:69.196.150.118

I've just blocked this IP address as it has been clearly carrying on the edits of User:Fmaack. His edit pattern involves the article on Andrew Nellis (also Andrew Bruce Nellis) and their DRV debates. I blocked Fmaack for a week for trolling after he did this, which itself didn't occur in a vacuum: Fmaack had previously been blocked for personal attacks. Fmaack got pissed off at this and ended up leaving an unblock message that got him blocked indefinitely. While I don't disagree with that decision, what I stand by for sure was my 1-week block for trolling, which was being evaded via that IP address. Still, I would appreciate review from others: should this user really be blocked indefinitely? Can they be turned into a positive contributor eventually? Mangojuice^talk 05:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease

Dear Jimbo Wales,

I'd like to request a comment from you concerning THC's role as a potential treatment for Alzheimer's disease. I think this discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alzheimer%27s_disease#THC) could provide interesting insight into how Wikipedia really functions and could be used for future references. If you consider the discussion worth commenting, I'd appreciate it if you would have time to read through the entire thread about the subject and give an opinion about what is about to happen there.

Sincerely,

--Jnx 10:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted this on Jimbo Wales user talk page but apparently that was not ok so now I post it here. I'd like to have an honest opinion about this dispute. Jimbo Wales, if you see this please consider giving an opinion.

--Jnx 12:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're already getting plenty of discussion about the subject, why are you posting it here? And why would Jimbo Wales be an expert about Alzheimer's disease anyway? - Bobet 13:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I wan't someone with neutral point of view to give an opinion about this subject. You don't need to be an expert about Alzheimer's to give an opinion about this subject. If you read the discussion, you might understand what I mean. I am not after discussion, I am after conclusion. In my opinion the discussion about this subject has not reached conclusion yet.

I might be wrong on this subject, but I'd just like an opinion from someone I know I can trust to be objective. --Jnx 13:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like advertising to me. --InShaneee 13:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean advertising THC? That is not my point. As I said, I might be wrong. I am sorry if turning to Jimbo Wales seems strange to some of you, but people who I am having this debate with turned to the person responsible for the medicine Wikiproject who I consider pretty highly respected person too as far as Wikipedia persons go. I'd like an opinion from someone who doesn't see THC as nothing but a substance. In my opinion the last sentence in the comment by JFW in the discussion thread showed that his view on this is biased. --Jnx 13:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean advertising the study. And this shouldn't be turning into 'who can appeal to the highest power'. The Medicine Wikiproject has a lot of knowledge about this topic. Jimbo doesn't. --InShaneee 14:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has a lot of knowledge about being objective. I really don't understand your point about advertising a study? Everything in science is based on scientific studies, which are used as sources on Wikipedia articles. Please read the discussion thread, this case needs someone who is objective (and possibly not from the medicine Wikiproject) to take a stance. My point is not to turn this into 'who can appeal to the highest power', I'd just like to find someone who really knows how to be objective. --Jnx 14:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that everyone who disagrees with you isn't objective is the best way to ferret out the real bias. You've brought it up, and it's been roundly shot down. The time to let it go and stop making absurd claims about an FDA conspiricy is now. --InShaneee 14:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been roundly shot down. If you read the thread, there are people who have supported my stance too, and there are exactly two people who shot it down in addition JFW who commented on it yesterday. Please take a look at the arguments of the people who are shooting it down.

I do realize that I went overboard with my theories about hiding this fact but I got angry when I tried to make a discussion and the arguments from the people whose opinions differed from mine were absurd. You are right about letting go though. Maybe it's better to concentrate on something else now. I just thought I saw something here that wasn't what Wikipedia is about. You can remove the THC study from the article as far as I am concerned. --Jnx 15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

These sorts of disputes are common, you just need to work through them. Providing evidence in the form of major publications endorsing the study may help more than rallying supporters. Your best supporter is the truth. HighInBC 16:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Review

Could an independent admin review my declining of an unblock request at User talk:68.189.255.6 please? Thanks. Mangojuice^talk 13:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WhisperToMe's block was indefinite, but recommended to be at least three days... Personally that outburst of incivil language is reason enough to keep the ban in place for the time being. I'd remake the block with a definite timespan (say a week). Thanks/wangi 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Unbelieveable. Well, they cant even behave when applying for an unblock then they most definitely arent going to pull their head in afterwards. In the first few lines of the talk page he uses the words Moron, Clown & Retard. I dont know why WhisperToMe used the block the they did as its bound to (and has) cause confusion. As such, I have now reblocked for 2 months with the request that before unblocking an admin just pop a note through to myself or Mangojuice. Thanks Glen 13:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the personal-attack ridden rant from his talk page... we shouldn't be providing people with free webhosting for that kind of garbage. --W.marsh 13:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. User has now been notified Glen 13:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please put a block on 204.50.64.129

This IP has been warned that any further external link spamming will result in a block, and it was disregarded recently. I would list a the diffs, but it pretty much involves adding spam links to leasing, Hyundai Capital, and Penske Corporation. The links go to a "get out of your car lease spam site. Warning is on User talk page. Thanks! Puchscooter 14:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h. --Kbdank71 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, my user name is People Powered. Out of the blue on Saturday night Freakofnurture stole my user name, and blocked me from editing on the suspicion that I was another person, Andrew Sylvia. Rather than following any procedure, he decided to be policeman, judge, jury and executioner. Several other editors have commented that this seems to be unjust[51],[52] and apparently much of my work on the 2006 New Hampshire Elections has been deleted (you can see for yourself just at looking at Template:2006NHElection, on Friday all of those articles were blue, after I put in hundreds of edits into all of them. Now, most of them have been deleted, apparently for no reason. Please advise me on what to do now. Regardless of what happens, I think this is a perfect example that there needs to be some mechanism to keep administrators such as Freak of Nurture accountable for their actions. Right now, there appears that there is no accountability for his actions, and I'm worried for the project if there are other users that act in a way like this, let alone several. -- People Powered.

You weren't blocked on the suspicion of being Andrew Sylvia, you were blocked on the suspicion of being a sockpuppet of banned user Karmafist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Furthermore, you weren't just blocked by Freakofnurture, but also by Centrx. The block is currently under review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#People Powered block review. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, just FYI, Andrew is Karmafist. – Chacor 15:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

But he wasn't blocked for being the person, he was blocked for being a sock of a banned wikipedian, and the wikipedian is Karmafist. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, so i'll just come back as me. It's not like you could get rid of me anyway, and as long as the injustice here continues, i'll be around in one form or another, looking over your shoulders...

Weird

User:Zidcosd (Talk | contribs) is removing speedy delete banners from articles, with no reason. That's all he's doing. No editing, no particular pattern to the articles he doesn't want deleted. Can someone make him stop? The Crying Orc 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

He appears to be adding them now, and legitimately. --InShaneee 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Aniston picture

A user, in good faith, uploaded Image:Jennifer Aniston.jpg. The source for this particular image, flickr, claims that this image is licensed under the Creative Commons license. However, the uploader on flickr (not the person who uploaded the image to Wikipedia) has a number of other images which he similarly claims are licensed under CC while being blatantly obviously untrue. I believe this image also was not licensed under these terms. The person who uploaded the image to the Wikipedia claims rightly that I need to provide some evidence that the image was not released under the CC. Aside from the flickr page itself, I can't find this evidence. Can someone help me out? --Yamla 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not work that way. It is the burdern of the uploader to prove unambiguously that the license is correct and compatible with Wikipedia's goals. --69.157.1.45 16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

He's right. It's our job to avoid liability, so they have to show proof. --InShaneee 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree this image can be kept. I did a search through the public domain commercial usable images. Wikipedia states if an image is found there it can be relesed. Until that image is removed from Creative Commons it is allowed to be used on Wikipedia or a citation is needed proving that that specific image is not open source. My proof is that it was found on Creative Commons commercial section: http://search.creativecommons.org/?q=Jennifer+Aniston&commercial=on&engine=flickr Valoem ^talk 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My evidence, by the way, is that the flickr uploader also uploaded other pictures such as DVD covers that are blatantly obviously not licensed under the CC. And this image is very similar to standard Friends promotional images (albeit cropped) which have never been released by NBC under the CC license. The creative commons search page simply takes as accurate the license that is attached on the flickr page. If the uploader uses the wrong license, as seems to be the case here, the image will still show up. --Yamla 17:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)However, we've got clear proof that the licence is most likely faulty. It should become a common sense matter that we can't just leave it there. --InShaneee 17:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• If it's called into question, we err on the side of caution and delete images that are legally iffy. In cases like these, it's fair to delete. --Improv 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweetest Day

User:Miracleimpulse is engaging in a series of disruptive edits to the Sweetest Day article, primarily adding tags to the article where there is no consensus for this. Numerous editors have reverted him, but he seems to feel that the fact that the current version of the article does not conform to his point of view is reason enough for him add disputed, hoax, advertising, and other tags or tack on his version of the article. He's already been blocked for this sort of thing once. He also is continuing to insinuate in his edit comments that everyone who reverts him is involved in "industry spinning". WP:AGF but based on his past history with this article (which all of his edits involve) and the proximity of the "holiday", it's a safe bet he's only going to get more disruptive in the coming week.--Isotope23 17:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for disruption. He's clearly got an agenda to push, and considering his past attempts to replace the entire article with one of his own design, I doubt he'll stop any time soon. I've also put the previously userfied page he's using to stage these attacks up for MfD. --InShaneee 17:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... this whole thing is getting really tiresome.--Isotope23 18:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing attacks against Chinese dynastic and China related articles

One or more users dancing around IPs have been conducting a series of vandalism against Chinese dynastic articles, such as Han Dynasty, History of China, Qin Shi Huang and Jet Li. I've already blocked two of them User:65.43.196.76 and User:69.219.81.7, but there are more. Most recently User:69.220.162.121. I don't have a ton of time to keep pursuing this and I'd like some help. --Durin 18:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:75.35.132.212 has been doing the same things, I might add...it turns out that his vandalisms are attempts to push his POV. _dk 00:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect they may be related to this section above. _dk 00:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User 137.94.*.*

I've been reverting a series of edits (adding an apparently popular but not notable man to the list of notable professors) to Royal Military College of Canada. (Some sample diffs are [53] and [54]; it's been reverted six times so far.) The edits all seem to be from what seems a single user. Trouble is, each of the edits is coming in from a different IP address. All of the addresses are in the 137.94.*.* block, which an IP lookup shows is registered to RMC. Not sure what to do in this case, as there isn't a single user account, or even IP, to request a block on. Eron 18:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

semi-protected. Maybe the editor can make a case for some of his changes on the talk page in the mean time. Thatcher131 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Eron 18:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Julieismywife, etc. Spam Campaign

There has been a weeks-long campaign to inject promotional material from Linda Christas International Schools into dozens of existing articles across WP (+ creation of new single purpose articles), using a large number of sockpuppets, including attempts to get around deletions. Linda Christas is currently protected from being re-created, although at last check, Linda Christas International School was still up. These editors have spammed dozens of articles, and it's increasingly difficult to keep up with them and their new sock puppets. Currently deleting AFD tags as well. Certain articles that are being targetting multiple times daily, including Sue Grafton, Pat Boone, Margaret Spellings, Efrem Zimbalist, and Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. need to be protected. Linda Christas International School and Ronald F. Bernard need to be deleted (again!) and protected from recreation. Can I get an admin's help on this?

Sockpuppetts/Suspected Sockpuppets include: user:Julieismywife, user:71.143.16.237, user:Buddydebrill, user:Manysummers, user:71.143.14.118, user:71.143.4.0, user:71.142.228.226, user:Oppieangel2000. --Francisx 18:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrator input requested, re: User:Cooldudex234

This user created an article called "Non-Notable" which I speedily deleted as an attack page against WP admins. The user has responded with a personal attack on my talk page ([55]), and a manifesto of sorts on his user page. I'd appreciate another admin looking into this—I don't like to be the only point of contact in these kind of disputes. Thanks! -- Merope ^Talk 19:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've indef blocked him; if he indicates that he wants to make productive contributions then I am happy to unblock him. However we can't have troll-only accounts. The Land 19:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced his manifesto with the indefblockeduser template, as well. --InShaneee 19:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I assumed that my deleting his page and blocking him would just piss him off further. Cheers. -- Merope ^Talk 19:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Feline1 and breachs of WP:Civil

This has been blocked on the 9/10/06 for breachs of WP:POINT see User_talk:Feline1#Blocked and in the discussion here he has already issued the following statements

• Irish Nationalist trolls seems to outweigh leyalist pedants
• Spoke about the Flag of Ireland is a very negivate tone
• some proddy git

(Gnevin 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

With respect Gnevin, I'd suggest you may have been a little over-sensitive to this particular 'incident'. Being from Northern Ireland, I found feline1's comment to actually be slightly humourous. You were right to correct him/her with regard to your userpage (on which I saw one "emblem" which I don't regard, in its context, to be 'Irish nationalist' at all). His "some proddy git", I would have thought, would be more deserving of a polite reminder of WP:CIVIL. Unless s/he makes another, similar remark, I would suggest that it be forgotten. I honestly don't think they meant to cause any real offence with that initial remark.. at least, it was more of the style "a pox on both your houses". Just my thoughts on the matter - I've seen much worse. --Mal 05:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope this[56] is not typical of User:Feline1. I found this remark particularly offensive, and it was directed at me. User:Feline1 cannot know which way I think, or what my allegiances are in any matter. My sole purpose in my edit was to have more balance on that particular page. This sort of behaviour really turns editors away from editing, and is veiled intimidation. MelForbes 14:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

John Doolittle and John M. Poswall

(reposted from WP:RFC/UN)

I believe this user's name is an attempt to impersonate John Doolittle given that that's the only topic this person seems to edit about. I also believe that this user is John M. Poswall, an attorney who has just started a major media campaign against John Doolittle. (user shows up and posts a copy of a document, then latter a new article show up in the Sacramento Bee claiming John M. Poswall made a Freedom of Information request to get the document[57])

I expect that this will continue. The username was blocked as inappropriate, but I somehow doubt this will go away. Poswall is a fairly wealthy attorney and cares enough about this to buy 30 ad spots. Other then strictly enforcing WP:V and WP:NPOV I don't know what else I can do to... dissuade... this kind of POV warrior. I wouldn't be surprised if Jimbo gets a call and WP:OFFICE is invoked at some point. Any advise would be appreciated. ---J.S (t|c) 20:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If something real is happening that requires WMF to do something, please let us know. If they are just duking it out over content, whatever.--Brad Patrick 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Around 85% of that article is knocking copy. I removed it. Even though there were sources, those sections of the article which were not critical were so anodyne as to leave the indelible impression that this individual is venal and corrupt. Yes, I think it warrants some strong words form the foundation on Talk. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Guy 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the intervention in that regard Guy. Never knew what to do about it. ---J.S (t|c) 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And it's all back. I agree with Guy's comment above - the article definitely has an extremely negative slant as it stands. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For further discussion on issues such as whether the article (as revised) violates rules against soapboxing and copyviol, please see Talk:John Doolittle#Criticism (controversies) section. I think it's helpful to have such discussion in one place, and the article's talk/discussion page probably is an easier place for editors to see why changes have been made to the article. John Broughton | Talk 13:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Very true John. This whole section has sorta deviated from the origional point anyway. I think "Dolittl" has given up anyway... well, I hope so atleast. ---J.S (t|c) 16:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Owens Community College page being used as a "vandalise at will" test case

The page on Owens Community College has apparently been chosen as a test case, by one or more classes at this school, of how unreliable wikis are. A few nights ago I reverted several particularly nasty vandals at this page, and then protected it when it became clear to me that it was being targeted for deliberate insertion of misinformation by more than one person. [58] [59] [60]

I'm going to unprotect it now, since a few days have gone by and there's at least one comment on the talk page suggesting a potentially accurate edit. Can someone else please put this on their watchlist, and keep an eye out? I find it particularly amusing that they are angry [61] when our anti-vandal measures are successful at stopping them in their efforts to prove us "unreliable." Antandrus (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a note on the article talk page. Durova 14:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Password reminder from Wikipedia

I am not sure about which is the right page for reporting this. I have been receiving roughly one or two Password reminders a day for months. I am not especially concerned since the messages are short and easily identifiable. I do not want to classify them as spam, because I may need the service if I forget my password. Strangely I don't get these messages in other wikis I am registered with. What is the purpose of these bogus requests? Is there something that I can do? The addresses causing the messages are:

• User:212.22.161.3 Today 00:34
• User:222.253.77.8 Today 00:09
• User:195.24.222.139 16/10/06 19:47
• User:200.201.10.41 16/10/06 00:28
• User:200.201.10.41 16/10/06 00:25
• User:80.227.0.153 14/10/06 21:41
• User:201.17.155.225 13/10/06 16:50
• User:203.172.168.242 13/10/06 04:26
• User:203.172.168.242 13/10/06 04:08
• User:201.2.73.9 11/10/06 23:05
• User:198.54.202.254 11/10/06 22:49
• User:198.54.202.254 11/10/06 21:46
• You get the picture...

--Error 23:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... other then the admins banning those IP address there isn't much to do about it. However, it looks like it's different people who were attracted to your user name or one person with a proxy. The fact that it's one or two a day suggests it's the former. It might be that "User:Error" is defaulted to in some weird circumstances. You could setup a filter to throw them into a special folder and simply ignore them. *shrug* ---J.S (t|c) 23:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly why usernames such as Error are now discouraged. I see you've been around for a long time. You may want to consider getting your account moved to a new name. Wikipedia:Username has some hints for you. HTH, Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

JS, even if they are blocked here, it doesn't prevent them from requesting passwords due to a bug in the mediawiki software. So yes, until that's fixed setting up a filter is a good idea. Also remember Error that each new request cancels out the previous so there are only at most two active passwords on an account at one time. pschemp | talk 01:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I won't ask for blockings since it seems this is clueless users that somehow type "error" or are sent to a page that mentions "error". I will not change names by the moment. I have setup that filter. User:69.50.208.4 sent several tens of reminders between 19/10/06 03:28 and 03:29, though. --Error 23:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A brilliant man at User:69.50.208.4 just sent me 27 password requests. Thanks, dude. Ashibaka tock 02:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

hmm, glad I'm not an admin actually. I thought I was more visible than I am, I expected atleast one password reset request sent to me. ~crazytales56297 ^{O rly? Ya rly!} 04:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

AUGH I should NOT have posted that, I just received 12 pass requests!!! ~crazytales56297 ^{O rly? Ya rly!} 05:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

now 52, and they're all from 69.50.208.4. ~crazytales56297 ^{O rly? Ya rly!} 05:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. A hard block of that IP has been requested as you can tell from the talk page its one of the main offenders. Its also located at 69.50.208.4 = atjeu publishing, llc 1515 West Deer Valley Road Phoenix AZ so anyone who lives there near can go harass if they wish. pschemp | talk 05:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A feature that would restrict the numer of password requests that are sent to any one user aparently exist in the software already, it just need to be turned on. I postead a heads up on the technical village pump about it, but I guess the devs haven't seen it or gotten around to it yet. If anyone "connected" would give one of the devs a poke about this we should be eable to at the very least reduce the problem significantly. --Sherool (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I think our little spammer is lurking here, I just got 112 Password reminders myself. Geez get a life --Sherool (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

69 here. The wonder of Gmail is that it threaded them all into a single entry in my inbox. --Carnildo 17:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also got attacked from the same IP address, so it is not username "Error" that is a problem. 69.50.208.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been indefblocked on Oct 2, but the attacks still go on. Anything else could be done? Perhaps we should contact his ISP and ask to stop services. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted a request on the wikitech mailing list to turn that throtteling feature on. Once that is active there should hopefully at the most be one or two mails per day... Anyway the problem is know and hopefully being handeled. I suggest we heed WP:DENY set up a mail filter and just ignore it from now on. No doubht long threads of complaints are just the kind of attention this looser is after. --Sherool (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Elvis Presley article

User:Lochdale is repeatedly deleting whole paragraphs and relevant passages from the Elvis Presley article. See, for instance, [62], [63], [64], [65]. I don't know for what reason he is doing this, but there can be no doubt that his primary aim is to constantly harass me by removing my contributions, wrongly calling them questionable or original research. See also the history of this user from the beginning. In fact, my contributions are well sourced, as everybody can see, as I have used many independent sources, among them mainstream biographies and university studies. The activities of this user are not acceptable. Onefortyone 23:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As soon as User Onefortyone's most recent probabtion (for the same article. An article that he has been banned from several times) was lifted he went right back to editing the Presley article. Once again, the same use of selective quotation and questionable sources have been used to support his original research. Indeed, both his mentor 220 and another editor 221 told him to stop (in no uncertain terms it might be added). This user's entire reason to exist on wiki appears to be to get as much scandal and gossip written about Presley as possible. The materials you quote are either take out of context or are selective. I think your own mentor put it best (and if I can be forgiven for quoting him here) when he said: — Just because something is sourced does not mean that it belongs in the article and Wikipedia is not the place for revelations about Elvis Presley's sex life. Wikipedia is not interested in obscure and rather tenuous factoids or inferences about a dead rock star's sexual relations. Emphasis his, not mine. Lochdale 23:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself, Lochdale. Did you actually read the passages you have deleted? I don't think so. Otherwise you would not have written such things. The majority of the material you have deleted does not deal with "revelations about Elvis's sex life". I hope that some administrators will have a close look at the material you have removed. Onefortyone 23:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of what I removed was relating to Presley's sex life (your favorite topic). I do hope an admin looks at your editing history and sees how it focuses almost exclusively on Presley or on people who may be related to Presley (whom you then try to cross-reference in the main article). [Here]you basically create an aticle and then try and cross-reference into the main Presley article. Or [here] where you have heavilly edited another article all to suggest that Presley was homosexual. You have been banned from this article before because you have an agenda. The section of the "Elvis Cult" was so POV and disjointed that it warranted removal. As I noted, even an admin and your own mentor noted that that section was not relevant to the article. Lochdale 23:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong, Lochdale. You have deleted material concerning the Elvis cult, the FBI files on Elvis, etc., all of which is well sourced. Another user said on the Talk:Elvis Presley page that the paragraph on the "Elvis Cult and its Critics" includes "a lot of great information" but needs some rewording. So other users think that the paragraph should not be removed. By the way, you should also have mentioned what administrator NicholasTurnbull said on August 4, 2006:

Lochdale:, it does ... seem some of the edits (but not all) that you have made are not strictly in line with WP:NPOV, which I hope you will work on satisfying in the future. I might also ask whether you would be willing to enter into a voluntary hiatus from editing the article for a period of time until the dispute has settled a little. Onefortyone 23:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Lochdale, you are part of an Elvis fan group that endeavors to suppress well-sourced information from the article which is not in line with the positive view you have of your favorite star. Onefortyone 23:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not try and deflect from the real issues at hand here which is you pushing your agenda. It appears that anyone and everyone who disagrees with you is part of this "conspiracy" (a "conspiracy that your mentor and an editor have told you to drop). It's a favourite and rather unpleasant tactic you routinely employ. The article is choc full of negative comments about Presley including his heavy drug abuse so don't try and suggest that the article is a puff-piece without your edits. Do remember, this is an entertainer we are discussing. Not a politician or a religious figure. Lochdale 23:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I noted that I would be happy to discuss this in the discussion section and via the sandbox. Intrestingly, adminstrator Turnbull never banned me from the article and has been quite clear in his concerns over your edits. I would note that when you were banned (again) from the aticle that there didn't seem to be any edit wars at all concerning the article. Every other wiki contributor managed to edit the article without issue. Lochdale 23:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that you seem to push an agenda, as you are frequently deleting whole paragraphs I have written. These paragraphs are well sourced and include relevant information. I hope that some administrators will have a look at your contribution history. Here is one of your recent contributions to the Elvis talk page which shows your interests: [66]Onefortyone 00:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute rather than something needing admin attention, though I am not an admin, and should be taken to dispute resolution instead. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This has already been through ArbCom. Jkelly 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Then send it back. Administrators have no special authority over content, so there is no reason for this to be here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis sock to block

Please block ArbMan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), which is most likely a sock of community-banned JarlaxleArtemis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). It's being used to repeatedly post deletion messages and change tags. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/JarlaxleArtemis for evidence. —Psychonaut 23:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The account has been blocked by User:The Anome, though apparently for unrelated reasons. —Psychonaut 20:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Admin Jaranda and breach of WP:NPA

Jaranda (talk • contribs) has breached WP:NPA 3 times recently with personal attacks in edit summaries: [67], this contained a personal attack and major obscenities, and [68]. He also reverted the warning for his personal attack and said that calling someone an idiot was not a personal attack. [69] He then blocked the person who gave him the legitimate warning. [70] I do not think this person is fit to be an administrator.--Rebel 2 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

May the record show that this user has been using multiple sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets to attack Jaranda and vandalize his userpage. This user is also now indefinitely blocked. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for trolling Rebel. Enjoy your blocks. Joelito (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you harrass someone the right way, you can always get them to crack. Fully support Jaranda. Grandmasterka 02:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I Support Jaranda. Rebel, please do not harass and please understand that this is a revolutionary project, and history has taught us that all revolutions of this sort tend to succeed. Also, as an aside, I support an 11th commandment: "Thou shalt not harass people who help contribute to progress in thy era". — Deckiller 02:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(Predicts that someone will say the 12th commandment should be not to feed trolls). — Deckiller 02:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is quite pathetic. A vandal/harasser who is certainly not abiding by our policies himself tries to call out Jaranda? Fat chance. Of course, I fully support Jaranda versus the troll. --Cyde Weys 02:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "thine era"? ;-) Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 08:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He should enjoy his long IP block I trust. Mackensen (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaranda has quit wikipedia it seems in light of these events, judging by the userpage and history. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, granted blatant vandals and puppeteers should get booted out so fast it'll make thier head spin, but I don't think it's appropriate for someone to make edit summaries like that. Two wrongs don't make a right, even if the other person is really wrong. Paul Cyr 03:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaranda called the user an idiot and an asshole, and accused them of fucking around with his userpage. Since the user is clearly both an idiot and an asshole and plainly was fucking around with Jaranda's user page, what's the problem? Guy 08:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Compared to the harassment to Cyde and Jaranda, the edit/block summaries were completely harmless. It is nicer not to insult the trolls/vandals, but this is clearly a case where enforcement of WP:NPA would be monumentally stupid. Kusma (討論) 09:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy is meant to protect actual users and editors, not trolls and vandals. Mackensen (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy is meant to protect the encyclopedia not 'users we like' over 'users we do not'. Any user, whether 'we' like them or not, who calls someone an "asshole" is clearly violating NPA and should be asked to stop... because WP:NPA exists to protect the encyclopedia itself, not so that we can pick and choose which users are allowed to behave badly. When we act that way rather than being civil it is disruptive and damaging to the project as a whole. This should be obvious, but somehow we always get these ridiculous arguments that 'it is ok for admins to be incivil to the users they are blocking for incivility'. It is understandable for people to slip up from time to time when provoked/angry, but it should never be allowed / accepted. Users are routinely blocked for comments like those from several people above. We either need to start blocking 'favored' users like admins just as routinely (which would generate more conflict but at least be less hypocritical) or extend the same leniency to regular users who get angry / lose their cool from time to time. --CBD 12:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, CBD, but stand that on its head. Is the encyclopedia better served by protecting a troll (who's only gone because I blocked his IP for a month) or Jaranda, who left because he got no support? Mackensen (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with CBD here. Although, yes, Jaranda was dealing with trolls, it's not appropriate to use personal attacks against them. It encourages their trollish behavior. I know that's not really the reason we have WP:NPA in place. Plus, admins are supposed to set a good example, so violating NPA at all (even towards bad-faith users) should be strongly avoided. In the end, though, we can't make a big deal about it: an ordinary editor would just get a warning. I'm more concerned about Jaranda quitting than anything else. Mangojuice^talk 13:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Admins are human (shock). I'm very concerned that Jaranda didn't feel he could reach out for support from other admins. I have to wonder if the somewhat poisonous environment on this noticeboard is part of the problem. Anyone who comes here with this kind of situation will be lectured for daring to slip up and exposed to public humiliation. Not from me--I'll block the sockpuppeting troll and call it a job well done. But that's me. Mackensen (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaranda had left before anyone said 'boo' about it... and given that we expect regular users to somehow deal with the much greater "public humiliation" of being blocked, your classification of gentle 'um, you should not do that', type comments to admins as too "poisonous" to endure is an absurd double standard. If we expect them to deal with it we ought to be tough enough to do so as well. You pull out the old false dichotomy of 'do you support the troll or the admin' again above... I support Wikipedia and the civility policy which helps keep it from being a snarling mass of obnoxious behaviour. Anyone who violates that should be asked to stop. Tolerating or excusing it from admins serves only to make claims of bias true and promote attacks and burnout of good users. --CBD 15:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Idiot isn't a strong personal attack. In some cases, frankly, it's descriptive. The later comments came after harrassment via the talk page and email. What we ought to be discussing is how we can better support admins who are subjected to this kind of harrassment. Jaranda isn't the first good user driven off, and he won't be the last. Mackensen (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

By all means... reach out, ask why they left, try to support them. We should do that with every user. Just don't encourage people to be incivil or claim that 'idiot is not a real insult if an admin says it'. That is "poisonous". --CBD 15:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I too am saddened that we seem to have lost a valued contributor and administrator. Is there anyone who can reach out to this person? Newyorkbrad 13:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User TheBee - Self promotion and repeated false charges of "hate group"

Please look at this. I don't believe it qualifies as a personal attack but this user is over the edge - repeatedly suggesting and inserting into articles that an organization (PLANS) (an organization I am loosly associated with) that is critical of Waldorf Education (another organization I am associated with) is a "hate group". This has been going on for months. The article "PLANS" contains many edits where he continually included this language and the talk page has more of this. These claims spill over to the Rudolf Steiner article and the Rudolf Steiner's Views on Race and Ethnicity article.

[71]

Amazingly, he supports this "hate group" claim with links to his OWN diatribes both here at Wikipedia and on his OWN personal websites. We've put up with this for a long time. Perhaps it's time for administrators to have a look at this. While most of us know this user to be famous for sensationalism, tossing around unfounded claims of hate group activity is a serious issue.

Here he produces his own website (TheBee and four other people) to advertise.it. His websites include Americans4WaldorfEducation, WaldorfAnswers and TheBee.

[72] [73] [74]

And here he starts making the claim of "hate group" [75] Notice - no edit summary. [76] [77] [78]

Here we have other defamatory claims supported ONLY by his own website [79] [80]

And completely ridiculous implications based on actual sources [81] [82] [83]

This user has been a pain, as I said, for months - and his edit-waring the bottom of several locked articles.

Thanks for looking into this! Pete K 03:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And he's still at it: [84]

Pete K 16:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

An active mediation case is open with both parties participating. I've decided to take no action and left a message at the poster's user talk page. Durova 14:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Is a community ban appropriate in this case?

There is an editor who has been problematic for a long time editing articles on plant taxonomy, see this which mostly discusses naming convention violations. Further investigation by interested parties by ToL members reveals that the user has been adding lots of OR, and not just to WP, he has backed up his OR by adding entries to wiktionary too. Since this editor only edits in this area, is not making good contributions elsewhere and seems to be using WP and sister projects just to advance his taxonomy theories (and its going to take a while for people to weed out the bad contributions he's made due to the complex nature of plant taxonomy), would a community ban be applicable in this case? --Peta 03:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd support it. After looking at his contribs, this kind of sneaky POV pushing is way worse than run of the mill vandalism and certainly harder to fix. He should at least be blocked until the mess is cleaned up to prevent him from causing further disruption. that being said, I'd totally support and actually prefer an indef ban. pschemp | talk 03:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading over the facts I have to say that is the sneakiest POV pushing/vandalism I've ever seen. To fix the problems listed someone would probably need to go through each and every one of his edits considering the complexity of the situation. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. At the vewry least the user should be blocked until the extent of the problem is established, to prevent further escalation of the problem. Guy 08:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The italicization issue is the least of it--in fact I think Brya has a (very narrow) point on that subject. What is of more concern to me is Brya's unwillingness to cooperate, tendency to claim ownership of articles, and abusive behavior towards several other editors (not just me) who have dared to try to edit those articles in any way. See discussions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, particularly with regard to the nomen nudum, nomen conservandum articles, for the tip of the iceberg. Brya has extensive knowledge of botanical nomenclature and has contributed valuable material, but his/her behavior is inexcusable. MrDarwin 13:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made the block as an previously uninvolved party. pschemp | talk 13:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the block. It should be long enough to at least assess and correct all the damage done. As there are few botany editors this might take a while. I think Brya's one supporter shows a serious lack of integrity, almost as if Berton is trying to show how poorly even Brya's supporters think of her, so should not be taken too seriously as a supporter, but also not as evidence of a single, negative, type of support for Brya. KP Botany 18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)~

Explain lack of integrity. As you is a novice here, better read Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.Berton 19:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You may have to debate my point, which was about the content of your post, the threat you posted, not you. However, you made your personal attack clear enough that an administrator should simply take you seriously:

THIS is a real threat.Berton 18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Threats lack integrity by failing to adhere to professional standards. KP Botany 20:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

KP Botany I think Wikipedia can be a better place, in that the people can really contribute willingly and mainly they be friends, I think of certain way I demonstrated that, now you have been demonstrating exactly the opposite of that, like with Users: Brya e Tajik.Berton 21:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tajik appears able to speak for himself quite well, and others at Afghanistan agreed with my concerns about the seriously Iranian POV of the article, not just NasarKhan, and ultimately Tajik left many of the edits stand and is actually trying to make things work out--what one should try to do--in spite of his frustration, well placed, at NasarKhan's edit style, and in spite of disagreements about content with NasarKhan. You might want to compliment them on how much they are trying to do, rather than criticize. I suspect that after the holidays the two and others concerned about Afghanistan articles at Wikipedia will work things out, as everyone is actually trying to do over their now, in spite of thousands of years of disagreement.

But now you sound just like Brya, attacking a side issue, Afghanistan, instead of taking responsibility for your own poor etiquette, threats. Possibly this is just a misunderstanding due to language barriers. However, your presenting these side arguments just like Brya does have made me change my mind about calling for only a temporary ban on Brya, and I now vote for a permanent one. If you want to discuss Tajiks, Pashtuns and Iranians, take it over to the many lively discussions on the various Afghanistan and South Asian boards right after the holy days and see how things work out. KP Botany 00:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No doubt that you have to learn much more things beyond languages.Berton 12:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I do. Learning is a lifelong process. Thanks for the olive branch compliment. I accept and admire your graciousness in taking the lead at putting things to rest. KP Botany 00:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The biggest issue with Brya is his/her disruptive effect on other botanical editors, through (1) reverts, (2) snarky edit summaries, and (3) comments on talk pages that disparage the works of other editors and push his/her POV. I think the "palaeodicot" issue is overblown, but it is precisely because of the climate that Brya has fostered that other editors would see an insidious aspect. And in some cases Brya's legitimate corrections have fed the controversy, whereas the same corrections from a less contentious editor would have been easily accepted. I support a block, to allow other editors to sort out the issues without interference. I won't support an indef ban, but I fear that when Brya returns, so will the problems.--Curtis Clark 13:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Indef ban is arbitrary and can be considered an example of digital maoism! Berton 13:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not "arbitrary" when the editor has repeatedly been disruptive, uncooperative, rude, insulting, and abusive towards numerous other editors. It is not "arbitrary" when the editor has repeatedly pushed a particular POV in articles, and refused to let others express another POV or even a NPOV. It is not "arbitrary" when an editor has repeatedly asserted ownership over articles and refuses to let any other editors touch them. It is not "arbitrary" when all of these behaviors have been observed, documented, and commented on by numerous other editors. It is not "arbitrary" when it has been corroborated by third parties not involved in the disputes. It is not "arbitrary" when Brya has been treated with kid gloves for well over a year, and given a second chance many times over. Like Curtis Clark, I have no doubt that when Brya returns, he/she will continue to edit and behave in exactly the same fashion. MrDarwin 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is arbitrary, simply for the fact that he cannot defend of these accusations, and the applied punishment (indef ban) it is desproporcional to the "committed crime". Berton 14:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Judging by your user talk page history you're pretty buddy buddy with Brya. The "committed crime" is a consistant effort to compromise the integrity of wikipedia through ommission, creating sources to support own argbuments and just plain lying. What makes it worse is the depth and effort that these have been performed with and Brya, judging from all sources, has been unflinching in his actions despite all evidence. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am considered buddy of him (this is not a crime), but I think that doesn't interest anybody, I don't share with several opinions of him, but your contributions were undoubtedly important, I believe that he in a certain way he sought the confrontation and for that it deserves a punishment, but certainly not indef ban.Berton 14:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this case has to be taken to Arbcom.Berton 15:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Banned users are typically blocked from editing all or parts of Wikipedia. They may be banned by the Arbitration Committee, by Jimbo Wales or by the Wikimedia Board of Trustees.

Users may also be banned by community consensus — when a user exhausts the community's patience to the point of being blocked and none of English Wikipedia's ~1000 admins will unblock.

Community bans must be supported by a strong widespread consensus. Before blocking someone for this, you should be very sure there is or would be widespread community support for the block; note it with reasons on WP:ANI for others to sanity-check. Such users can be considered banned and must be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community")."

It seems that there is not consensus here! Berton 15:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully endorse this block and had considered doing it myself on a number of occasions. Joelito (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you say because? Berton 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruption, slow edit warring, violation of consensus, exhausting community patience, insertion of OR and non-adherence to NPOV. Joelito (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Berton, your threat to me here here is entirely inappropriate. Please remain civil. pschemp | talk 17:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Berton is making threats; English is not his native language and in his frustration I believe he's simply chosen poor wording for his requests. He believes Brya has been treated unfairly (something with which I disagree) and that proper procedure for blocking or banning is not being followed (where Berton may have a point). MrDarwin 18:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you MrDarwin. I just want justice.Berton 18:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I request the unblock of User:Brya for flagrant violation of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy: lack of community consensus. Thanks Berton 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A non consideration of this request can be interpreted as bad faith and the consequence will be a decision for Arbcom. Will we avoid that?Berton 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One more threat and you will be blocked. --InShaneee 18:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

THIS is a real threat.Berton 18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a real warning, as you'll find out if you don't stop being disruptive. --InShaneee 18:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Berton, while it is certainly unusual for someone to be 'community banned' without ever having been blocked before... Brya's comments had become increasingly condescending towards many users and Wikipedia in general. Do you see any chance of that changing? Because if not I don't think there is much hope of a long term future here. Brya took the position that the majority who disagreed with him were wrong and that Wikipedia suffers from allowing their views... which is never going to fly in a consensus driven project. Sooner or later that's going to lead to a community ban. If he were willing to compromise his preferences in favor of reasonable standards adopted by consensus then past contentiousness could be forgiven, but consider the APG III issue... clearly a standard which doesn't even exist yet cannot be 'verifiable' and has no place in determining the content of Wikipedia articles. No? Yet I haven't seen Brya agreeing with that seemingly inescapable truism. Instead, he has suggested that APG III will exist and will follow the standards he has argued... which may well be very reasonable guesses, but still are clearly 100% unverifiable. That can't work. Wikipedia can't be a diviner of what the future holds or an arbiter of what the best nomenclature system is... that isn't and should not be our purpose. We document current views of the world, whatever they may be, but Brya seems to want to instead document the 'correct' view. There needs to be some kind of change in his approach, and I don't see any indication that he agrees with that. --CBD 19:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please give a chance for him to amend himself. For the past of his contributions, make a temporary block, please.Berton 19:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started a poll here to see whether there is a community consensus that User:Brya should be banned. MrDarwin 19:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the ban should last long enough to check all of Brya's edits and references. I guess that means I'm for an indefinite. But I'm not certain about the correct nomenclature of this.

However, because Brya was given an infinite number of chances without ever being blocked, imo, the community created the monster that Bray became. By monster, I mean not the person, but the large and unwieldly resulting behavior exhibited that has wasted so much time in botany pages, continuing to do so now by having to discuss it here, on WP:TOL, and all over the place, and caused so much damage, the ferocious edit wars and rampant speculation and Brya's POV all over the place, and endless discussions about what to do about Brya.

I did not know that Brya had never been blocked, and this surprises me. However, when someone is allowed to continue disruptive behavior, that person can escalate the disruptive behavior directly as a response to being allowed to do so. This is my opinion, of course. But I see it a lot in web communities. My suggestion is ban Brya for as long as necessary to clean up or verify all of her pages, then allow Brya to return, if that is what Brya desires. Other posters may be right that the disruptive behavior will return right along with Brya, but if it does then just implace a permanent ban.

It may be that Brya would have acted exactly the same, whatever the community did, and it seems that whatever the community does or expresses, Brya does whatsoever he/she wants to do without any regard for the community. So, I don't really mean that the victim (the community) is responsible for what was done, just that an earlier block would have been appropriate, having not done that, maybe Brya is owed one more chance.KP Botany 20:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The current block is indefinite, not infinite. Certainly if after the mess is cleaned up, and if Brya asks to be given another chance, one should be given. However, right now the block is to prevent the situation from disinigrating further. Let me know when things have been been fixed, and we'll discuss it then. pschemp | talk 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up, as it seems like some are discussing the indefinite ban as if it is permanent. KP Botany 20:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Np. Right now, the block is preventative. As discussion pregresses, that could change either way. pschemp | talk 22:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

May I politely ask that we refrain from calling other editors a monster? Imho this is against wikiquette. TeunSpaans 08:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To have "created a monster" is a figure of speech in American English (not sure about elsewhere) that has certain connotations, often used self-disparagingly, or disparaging the creator of the "monster". One more example of across-language misunderstandings, which I think have contributed to this whole fiasco. MrDarwin 13:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I favor the indefinite ban also, I keep running across random plant articles that Brya has scrambled in one way or another (entirely deleting genus list from a family article?), and it's going to take a while to clean up. Also, I would want to hear evidence of a change of heart about how to interact with other editors. Stan 13:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This ban proposed by Petaholmes it is a blatant attempt lynching of user Brya that a long time passed making great contributions mainly in the areas of Taxonomy and Botanical Nomenclature, and with me this user always went gentile and I never had problems with him (unlike novices).Berton 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not post on my talk page

Keeping me involved in this is simply seen by Brya and her supporters as an invitation to continue personal attacks on me to guarantee that only Brya be allowed to dictate how the Botany community on Wikipedia is run. Any responsible new editor to Wikipedia Botany will see their duty to correct misinformation Brya has sent through Cyberspace with the Wikipedia stamp on it and will start changing them. Then, after they have made hundreds of edits, many to Brya's false references, fake groups ("APG III"), and spurious remarks about time frames, they will be personally and falsely attacked for their low number of edits in a vicious and disingenuous manner by Brya until they leave.

If you attack newbies for their low number of edits you are doing far worse than biting them, you are outright giving them notice that Wikipedia does not welcome newcomers or want the contributions of anyone who cannot spend all day and all night contributing.

The Botany pages at Wikipedia need a lot of work to be useful to the Cyber-community. Until they have been attended to they should come with warnings about potential misinformation.

And, as long as Brya is in here personally attacking people, even while being blocked, they should come with warnings that newcomers will be personally attacked in a visious manner by Brya and her supporters for their contributions.

And, by the way, to the Dutch-Brya supporter, Brya introduced spurious references to APG II in the Dutch Wikipedia also.

The Wikipedia Botany community has worked hard over the past year to maintain Brya as a high contributor of personal attacks, point of view, and edit wars. Well, keep Brya, then. But warn newcomers of the potential consequences of attempting to contribute to the plant community on Wikipedia and warn Cyberspace communities that use Wikipedia about her speculation, point of view and false references.

I posted this in the ToL project and my talk page. Brya should rest assured that she has won this battle, as she has won all of the others. She would be right in every things she has called me, especially her personal attacks on my reading ability, intelligence, number of edits and fear of facts, if I kept contributing to Wikipedia in light of her and her supporters' treatment of me and any newcomer who edits and points out her false information all over Wikipedia and Cyberspace courtesy of Wikipedia and Brya.

KP Botany 18:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

KP Botany, I don't have anything against you, you can become an excellent editor and it has been demonstrating this up to now, but please control your emotions. Berton 19:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets blocked at Berlin

I have blocked Semlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ide Nov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely on suspicion of being sockpuppets of disruptive user Just the way (talk · contribs). Just the way made a number of POV-pushing edits to Berlin back in June, calling the Reichstag photo "Soviet propaganda", removing all mention of Kristallnacht, and talking about how the Nazis made "technical and aesthetical innovations" to the city. Semlow and Ide Nov have just made very similar additions: the phrase "the organizers made many technical and æsthetical innovations" occurs in this edit of Just the way's from 14 June and again in this edit of Semlow's from last night. Ide Nov showed up for the first time immediately after Semlow and began edit-warring against Lear 21 to revert to Semlow's version. (User:Kingjeff got caught in the crossfire: he once reverted to the POV version, making Lear 21 accuse him of sockpuppetry as well, but he quickly realized what was going on and started helping revert to the NPOV version.) —Angr 05:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The user keeps on removing content and adding an image he uploaded onto articles. [85]--Jersey Devil 06:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an WP:AIV case (and I've reported him there). Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked.--Konst.able 07:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:789suj98e7fh8sfdf98udfu8dfu9sdufdsf8377dh8nsdsncskj (diff; hist) .

Surely someone with a red link user name who vandalises Charles Darwin - but with a user name like this needs admin action in the face of policy re user names? SatuSuro 08:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User has already been blocked indefinitely. —Angr 08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Accounts beginning with 0101 and ending with 06

Any unblock requests made from usernames beginning with 0101 and ending with 06 coming from IP addresses in Hong Kong that were created in the last few days should be unblocked on sight. They belong to students of JMSC0101: Principles of Journalism and News Media at Hong Kong University which were blocked prematurely by a number of administrators on suspicion of being sockpuppet accounts. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Except the one which says User:0101willyonwheels06, should be obvious...--Konst.able 08:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Above account already blocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: these are students who have an assignment to write a great wikipedia article? :) Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Endgame1 (talk · contribs)

Not sure what to make of this guy... I have a feeling he's somebody's sleeper account. (Look at those contributions, which include mucking around with two peoples' RfAs in a bizarre fashion.) I thought I should bring it to your attention, since I have no idea what I should do about this. Grandmasterka 09:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I. I called him out for making bizarre, ridiculous accusations on Aksi great's RfA (such as calling him a Nazi for not agreeing to write very specific articles by the end of the candidacy period) Maybe a community block? He certainly is being disruptive. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I support a block for disruption, which appears to be the single purpose of the account -- Samir धर्म 23:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be leaving. He has asked me to delete his talk page and all his contributions (obviously declined).--Konst.able^Talk 11:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ldingley

Many of the images uploaded by this user have been deleted as copyright violations - a look over their contributions show a pattern of uploading photos from random sites and mistagging or claiming them as his own. I've got to get to bed for the night so if anyone else would like to take a look, this user has been uploading several images a day for more than a month - they all need to be reviewed. Shell ^babelfish 09:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Will review. FloNight 10:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Listed several images for deletion and left questions about more on Ldingley's talk page. [86] Ldingley used the Parliament of Georgia website as a source claiming PD. [87] I question if this a valid at least the way the lic is written. Is any one familiar enough with with Georgian copyright law to know if this is a valid PD claim? FloNight 12:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He actually provided his answer here. I think we can properly retag the images rather than have them deleted.--Kober 14:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That answer would be great except that its incorrect. More than five of the images he uploaded have been found on other websites - not like Getty Images where it would show he was the photographer, but on personal webpages at tripod or geocities where the photographers are unlikely to notice or complain. Four of these images were also uploaded to other websites claiming to be from various people - for instance, a photo of children from Georgia originally posted in 2005 to a homepage hosted at tripod was uploaded by Ldingley to Wikipedia last month claiming the author released into PD and listing the author as Rebecca James - source was given as trekearth, another site where the same picture was uploaded at the same time but under a different name; the photo has also been found on two other photo sites, all uploaded around the same date. As much as I'd like to assume good faith here, I find it hard to understand how he could have accidentally uploaded several photos from personal homepages, not his own, mistagged them, attributed them improperly and now claim that he buys said images for upload? Shell ^babelfish 20:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please dont call me a rat, its not nice and your tone if not really constructive. Please present evidence where I stole photos from "geocities" or "tripod." (I need to see them to charge their owners with photo theft). The children photo was actually by Mike Bugneri and Rebecca James. It is my fault that I didn’t include Mike. However, do not accuse me of image theft from geocities (actually maybe they uploaded my images which are available online) and call me a rat. Im sorry but im not a rat and you are smelling something else. Thanks a lot for your friendly response Ldingley 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One example is Image:Georgian kidssvanetia.jpg and Image:Georgian kids.jpg. The first image listed the source as trekearth.com (which calls Mike Bugneri the photographer) and the second identical image was listed as being from your personal collection. The image, in fact, comes from http://svanetitour.tripod.com/ and has been on the web since 2005 at that location. Some of the other images I deleted came from news agencies, which which were also claimed as "in your collection". Third, your most recent upload which you listed as public domain and are now claiming that you have permission for may have been copied from a book (I'll have more details as soon as I verify my source is correct). I'm sure I'll find more examples as I continue to review your contributions.

I'm sorry if you've been told by people that they are selling you these images with their copyrights; this doesn't appear to be the case in any of the instances I've come across so far. While it is taking some time, I have found an online source for each photograph I've reviewed so far. You may wish to look in to the possibility that someone is scamming you. Shell ^babelfish 22:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going through recent changes to Images by anons, and found several where the description has been modified, such as this change. Here are the changes by the anon [88] to images uploaded by Ldingley. I reverted a few of the anon edits before I realized this a problem, and the anon might be correct. I reverted those back to the anons. version pending further examination of what the actual source (TrekEarth) is. If TrekEarth is the source, these are copyrighted, not free to uses here, and need to be deleted. --Aude (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. if users would monitor recentchanges in the Image namespace, that would be helpful too. I'm finding a lot of vandalism edits that go unnoticed for quite a while. --Aude (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible use of proxies in months of vandalism

There's something strange going on at Netherlands national football team, Ajax Amsterdam, FK Partizan, Abdullah Gegić, Ertuğrul Sağlam and Muhsin Ertugral. A lot of IPs have all made exactly the same vandalous or semi-vandalous edits to these articles (for instance removing the list of past Ajax managers or changing the nationality of one of Partizan's former managers), all in (roughly) the same order. The IPs involved are:

• 80.227.0.153 (talk · contribs): Ajax, Partizan, Ajax, Ajax, Netherlands, Netherlands, Ajax and Netherlands
• 80.58.205.47 (talk · contribs): Ajax, Netherlands, Partizan, Ertugral
• 165.228.133.11 (talk · contribs): Partizan, Ertugral, Ertugral, Ertugral, Partizan, Ajax, Netherlands
• 212.50.0.221 (talk · contribs): Partizan, Ajax, Netherlands
• 200.21.174.5 (talk · contribs): Ajax, Netherlands, Partizan, Ajax, Netherlands, Partizan
• 125.18.166.54 (talk · contribs): Ajax, Partizan, Ajax
• 194.171.121.8 (talk · contribs): Partizan, Partizan.
• 82.168.59.236 (talk · contribs): Partizan, Gegić, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Saglam, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Saglam, Partizan, Saglam, Saglam, Ertugral, Ertugral, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam (note the edit summary), Saglam, Ertugral, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam, Partizan, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam, Partizan, Saglam, Ertugral, Ertugral.
• 82.92.94.108 (talk · contribs): Netherlands, Netherlands, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Saglam, Partizan, Ertugral, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam

The IPs involved might be proxies, so further action might be necessary: [89]. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Other IPs involved are 219.87.146.160, 194.171.121.10, 194.171.121.25, 194.171.121.27, 148.244.235.4, 148.233.120.49, 193.164.254.50 and 80.81.53.100. I'll provide the diffs later today. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, 27 IPs are suspected now. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A further note: 80.81.53.100 (talk · contribs) had already been indefblocked as an open proxy. However, the very first edit coming from this IP, was a request to have the autoblock lifted, which read: "It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of General Tojo." Are the edits from this IP, and with it the edits from the other 30-ish IPs, consistent with Tojo's editing style? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The vandal has also created several sleeper accounts on October 8th, presumably in order to avoid the semi-protection at Ertuğrul Sağlam. Among these accounts are Larsnieuwehuizen (talk · contribs), Katie1987 (talk · contribs), Achilles10 (talk · contribs), KarelKoophandel (talk · contribs), Savas77 (talk · contribs), DaphneLuilak (talk · contribs) and Ronald75 (talk · contribs). This might indicate that there are more sock accounts lurking. Has the time come to act on this, or should I wait? PS. The names Larsnieuwehuizen, DaphneLuilak and KarelKoophandel indicate that this could be a Dutch vandal. Is that compatible with any known vandal? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username, vandalism and possible attack on User:Alphachimp

Thebonerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new account that has made one inaapropraite edit to Giant Panda (diff [90]) , but also posted this to his user page which makes me think he's a sockpuppet for someone with a chip on their shoulder about Alphachimp, but in any case, has not become a member in order to help develop an encyclopedia. --Siobhan Hansa 13:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Thebonerman. Hope that is ok. --Guinnog 13:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you hadn't, I would have. —Angr 13:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. If you hadn't I probably would have. Alphachimp 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon Vandal of Battle of Mogadishu Page

User:207.190.175.254 has struck again vandalizing the Battle of Mogadishu page (partly a good thing because I was able to check his contributions and find the old version of a section he vandalized before), anyways block him please. He's been warned numerous times, and blocked at least once. PPGMD 13:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No one responded to this so I checked the user history. No edits from this IP since 17 October. If there had been vandalism in the last 24 hours I'd have reblocked. Durova 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He reappeared 8 hours ago, vandalizing a number of pages, most noticably John Proctor. ccwaters reverted some of them, & has left a warning on this anon's talk page. Looking at all of the warnings given this person, I think it's clear this person is not here to contribute to Wikipedia, & the only question we need ask is when should we block this IP for good. -- llywrch 22:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy/paste move

Somebody copy/paste moved the previously-moved Punk Goes '90s to Punk Goes 90's, so now I am unable to move it back. Despite the Wikipedia image showing the title to be Punk Goes 90's (as it was on an early online release of the cover art), the actual name on the CD case (and the grammatically correct spelling) is Punk Goes '90s. Sources are here, here and here. Please merge article histories and move back to Punk Goes '90s. Thank you. --HarryCane 14:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

the place for such requests is WP:RM, please take it there. Thanks, ~crazytales56297 ^{O rly? Ya rly!} 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Fenton and Hungrygirl

Note: I have removed this dispute from WP:AIV. Alphachimp 14:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I have had it up to here with this vandal. because I have started contributing to wikipedia because, MatthewFenton slanders me on this page about being a troll. I think this a good reason to ban this user for not assuming good faith. I don't know where he gets off accusing me of being a troll. Not only that, but I haven't done anything wrong. All my edits are in trying to get rid of a user's negative comments about wikipedia. MathewFenton keeps adding back the user's negative comments because they were friends. I have checked the history and I see that they are good friends. He is showing biased toward the user and doesnt' care about wikipedia. I have even given explanations in attempt to talk out why I don't like the user's negative comments. Mathew Fenton continues to erase them without any explanation and then continues his unacceptable behavior by coming here and slandering me. I think this is calls for a ban. He also has erased my comments from Charlesknight's page repeatedly. You are not allowed to erase comments from pages and I have had to add them back several more than 3 times. Hungrygirl 14:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your actions are of a trollish nature. Wikipedia isn't censored, and if you dont like a users opinion then don't read it. From your contributions your account has only been used to follow Charles Knight. --Alex (Talk) 14:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hungrygirl appears to be a sockpuppet, judging from its contribs. Michael K. Edwards 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hungrygirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Blatant troll: Has been doctoring comments on User talk:Charlesknight on a daily basis and sending me "vandalism warnings" for reverting them - It appears this user has been trolling/stalking Charles since the 12th ([91], [92] - also check contribs for message doctoring.) --thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not make accusations. I am not a troll and when you make accusations without any proof, that isn't assuming good faith. You're breaking a wikipedia rule just like Matthew Fenton. Happy editing Hungrygirl 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If the accusations continue, I will take it up with an administrator. I am not a troll and if I am continued to be accused of one, I have a right to go to an administrator about it. I don't care how many edits I've made. You have no right to make accusations. This is about Mattthew Fenton's vandalism. I'm done. goodbye Hungrygirl 14:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not threaten other users. It is contrary to the spirit of this community, and also not allowed per Wikipedia's harrasment policy. If you wish to make a complaint about a user, please follow the steps in our dispute resolution procedure. As stated at the top of this page, this page is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Thank you, Daniel.Bryant 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Would support an indefinite block of the troll. Just settle it, go back to working on the encyclopedia, let's not waste time on trolls. – Chacor 14:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur (edit conf.) Daniel.Bryant 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Sorry I moved it here, I just wanted to clear AIV. Alphachimp 14:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears we got the "troll" bit right. Daniel.Bryant 14:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but an indefinite block seems harsh. I petition to change it to a temporary block. --Mihai cartoaje 12:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no way. There's no justifying that behavior at all, I completely agree that an indefinite block is warranted. There's not a bit of evidence that the user would become a productive user. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds? Only real productive users get non-indefinite blocks. Throw-away accounts that are being used for trouble-making are always blocked indefinitely. --Cyde Weys 23:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's because,

• It might be my lack of experience, but I have not found anything ruling out a bona-fide first-time editor.--Mihai cartoaje 10:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this block. Looking through Hungrygirl's contribs, there is nothing there to hint that she wants to be a constructive editor, and her actions are certainly trollish. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hungrygirl has participated in a discussion on an issue of sockpuppets[93]. It appears that Hungrygirl was trying to become a wikipedia administrator [94] and thought that this was how to accomplish it. The many edits to user talk:Charlesknight are because an edit war has happened there. --Mihai cartoaje 09:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mihai cartoaje has filed a mediation case with MedCab regarding this at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 User:Hungrygirl. If anyone would like to discuss the situation with Mihai cartoaje, or a neutral party would like to mediate, please feel free. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand the admins' actions now after reading about the AfD. It was me who was too hasty. --Mihai cartoaje 21:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(Other) Admin assistance, re: User_talk:Gary123

I'm sorry to ask for help again, but I'm still just a newbie admin and am not quite sure how to proceed. Gary123 (talk · contribs) keeps posting a notice to all on my talk page indicating that John Smith's (talk · contribs) has a vendetta against him. He links to Talk:People's Volunteer Army, which contains more of the same. His talk page also "documents" this user's personal vendetta. For now, I've just removed his comments from my talk page, but I don't know how to handle this situation. I'm inclined to delete his "documentation" and push him to WP:RfC or WP:M, but I'm not entirely convinced he's acting in good faith. Um. Help? (And sorry! Don't bite the new admin!) -- Merope 15:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Gerard Doyle

Gerard Doyle (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for a week for edit-warring on Parkinson's disease, having just come off a prior block for "sabotaging a checkuser request" that had been filed on suspicion of his being a sock of deservedly banned User:General Tojo. Has this user now succeeded in committing Wiki-suicide by edit summary here? Newyorkbrad 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Centrx (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) beat me to the punch and indef blocked the user. (His WP Glossary probably cinched the deal.) -- Merope 17:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

lol. I just left a message on the blocking admins page about that. He's also left some interesting messages on the talk page (both his current rant he's using to blank everything else, and in the bottom few messages before blanking. --Crimsone 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have contacted you directly, Crimsone, but figured you would want some other admin to throw the switch this time. (I actually am not as convinced as some others that "reverting warnings" is a serious problem, but his overall pattern of conduct was going beyond the pale.) Newyorkbrad 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Newyorkbrad - much appreciated. As you say, his pattern of behaviour really was beyond the pale, so I figured that it made sense just to mention it to Centrx, who'd blocked him earlier. On the upside though, it's always nice to be called welsh! The blnking of warnings wasn't really the problem, but he'd blanked quite a lengthy page, even after telling him that he should arhive rather than blank (I wouldn' mind betting he already knew that mind.

It seems to me that the feeling of "ownership" of user talk pages is a bit of a problem as a whole. Is there an essay/explanation or guideline on the purpose an, uses, and importance of userspace? --Crimsone 17:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Seems that even as an indef blocked user, he's insiting on blanking the talk page and re-inserting the "glossary", even after centrx's revert. Is it worth reverting back and protecting? Crimsone 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Gorram Centrx beat me to it again. ;) I don't brook disruption. -- Merope 17:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL - fair play, he's nothing if not on the ball! Very quick indeed! --Crimsone 17:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:70.129.99.99

User:70.129.99.99 has vandalized three times today. Looking at the history of the user's talk page, the user has vandalized many, many times over the past several months. All of this was deleted from the talk page except what was added today. Can this user be banned? Bubba73 (talk), 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 18:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon vandal on Pullman related pages

Just an FYI... Yesterday I blocked 207.63.107.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for vandalism to George Pullman, Pullman Strike and a few other related pages. After his block expired today, he was back, so he's now blocked again, this time for a bit longer. 205.188.116.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made similar vandalism edits to the same pages as has 24.97.33.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 169.204.120.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). At least one of these IPs is a known AOL address, so we may see more trouble on these pages this week. Slambo (Speak) 17:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Another minor with personal information

User:Jolu posts locale, DOB and school email... should some of it get deleted? He has <10 edits, hasn't edited since August 16. Maybe try emailing? --user:Qviri 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Given his inactivity, I've just deleted the information and left a note on his talk page. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Merope 18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities

So this 82kb and growing behemoth has been open for 9 days and was relisted at AfD today for further consensus. At this point it is either a keep, delete, or no consensus and keeping it on AfD is just increasing the pain for the admin who eventually has to read through and close this... so any takers on puting it out of it's misery now? To make things more interesting, it appears that someone tried to solicit opinions from people who opined delete on another AfD, though I didn't check if they were successful or not. Some days I'm glad I'm not an admin.--Isotope23 19:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus (and what fun that was). Yomangani^talk 21:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You're a good man Charlie Brown.--Isotope23 00:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Persistent copyright problems by User:Jonathan ryan

I have been dealing with User:Jonathan ryan who persistently has been uploading images [95] that clearly are copyright violations, and places improper licensing tages. He is improperly claiming public domain over some images. Also, claiming he's the creator even though it's clearly not the case, with the names of the photographers/copyright owners marked on the photo. [96] [97] [98] ([99] [100] [101] - these already deleted) He also has misrepresented the time/place that the photo was taken. [102] [103] [104] I have tried my best to assume good faith, to think that he is well-meaning and just doesn't understand about copyrights. I have left numerous messages to try and explain about copyrights, in addition to the standard copyright problem messages he's received. I don't think he will listen to me anymore, and maybe someone else can get through to him? Otherwise, I think he is heading towards an indef block, per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Protection. I would appreciate any second opinions on this. --Aude (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Image sources are detailed here. --Aude (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I left a final warning. Jkelly 22:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't like to block users that may mean well, but his edits and uploads have not been helpful for Wikipedia. I've been able to get through to other users about copyright issues, but he doesn't seem interested. --Aude (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Probable sock User:Gtorresjr at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjinderpal Sekhon

Gtorresjr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making quite a scene at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjinderpal Sekhon, including general incivility, baiting, trolling, comment blanking and indications of a rather high level of knowledge of Wikipedia policies and systems for someone who just signed up. Anyone care to give him the onceover? --Aaron 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolling of Memory Alpha

Several users of the "Lostpedia" are trolling Memory Alpha (Check history) addingg no existant AfDs, speedy deleteions, multiple PRODs. Likely due to the fact there article was deleted for the 5th time tonight. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what action is needed? There are specific places for requesting page protection or vandal blocks. 90.192.92.77 (talk · contribs) has been warned and seems to have stopped, and he seems to be the lone offender today. --W.marsh 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

The following pages need protection:

1. Butterfly
2. Rashi

I thought I could protect these pages by putting the protection tag on them myself, but I guess there is more involved than that. These pages are vandalized on a regular basis. Most of the people who do it are supposed to have been blocked from editing, but they keep on doing it over and over and over again. Just check the pages' histories and you will see.

Sometimes, the people will erase the entire article and just leave a single profane word in its place. Other times, they just rewrite paragraphs, throwing in raunchy words to make the subject look like a sex-starved pervert, especially in the Rashi page. Please protect these pages!!! (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, but there really isn't enough recent vandalism to justify protecting them. Also, requests for pages to be protected should go here. Thanks. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Improper unprotection of Albert Einstein

User: Kingboyk unprotected Albert Einstein with the comment “Protected Albert Einstein: Our high visibility articles should not be protected for long periods, and the attack on this article was trivial and could have been solved by a block (see The Beatles, we get crap every day)” This article was vandalized 31 times by 24 different IPs in 3½ days. That is hardly trivial in my book. Which of the 24 IPs does he propose to block. Also it had not been protected for a “long period” – only 2 days. It seems to me that an admin should be less bold in abusing his power. --teb728 23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you've directed Kingboyk here, but I would strongly recommend asking him privately on his talk page first and giving him a chance to reply before posting on ANI in the future. I've also taken a cursory glance at the situation, and I don't find anything wrong with the unprotection. The article, a relatively high-profile one, had already been semiprotected for over two days; semiprotection is not meant to be used generally for lengthy periods of time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. This article is regularly vandalized by various anon vandals about ten times a day every day whenever it is not semiprotected. What in your opinion should be done in such a case? Blocking individual IPs does no good, because the vandalism comes from many different IPs. I fail to see any reason against long-term semiprotection—particularly for a high-profile article. If nothing can be done, good editors will just take problem articles off their watchlists, the vandalism will go uncorrected, and the reputation of Wikipedia will suffer. --teb728 01:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is explicitly in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia to have any page protected or semiprotected for a great length of time. Unfortunately, this means that very high-profile pages get vandalised often, but high-profile pages also tend to be the most watched, and thus the vandalism is always fixed within a minute or so. Except in the case of sudden and extreme onslaughts of vandalism, pages should not be semi-protected at all; in the case of concerted vandalism efforts, blocks combined with day-long semi-protection nearly always solve the problem. —Cuiviénen 02:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no mention (or implication) in WP:SEMI about “sudden and extreme onslaughts of vandalism” or “day-long semi-protection.” What it does say is “A page can be temporarily semi-protected by an administrator in response to serious vandalism, in which the page is getting a large number of vandalism edits from so many different anonymous … accounts that blocking them individually is not a solution. … Semi-protection is a temporary measure used to stem vandalism on a page until the attack of vandalism is regarded as over. Some articles with a history of vandalism, such as George W. Bush or Jew, may be semi-protected on a continuous basis.”

It seems to me that this applies to Albert Einstein: The page is getting a large number of vandalism edits from so many different anonymous IPs that blocking them individually is not a solution. Any time semiprotection is removed the vandalism returns shortly; so the attack of vandalism cannot be regarded as over. Like George W. Bush and Jew, the article has a history of vandalism, which suggests that it be semi-protected on a continuous basis.

If is not fair to the editors who watch an article to rely on them to revert vandalism that you could easily block. If this unprotection stands, I for one will stop reverting anon vandalism on this article. And I suspect that a lot of other resident editors will feel the same. --teb728 07:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC) modified --teb728 22:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

teb728, I'm sorry the vandals are bothering you. :-( Having our articles open for editing without an user account is an important Wikipedia philosophy. Many of our most experienced editors started out by fixing a small error in an article as an IP address. Semi-protection was primarily intended for articles with few people editing them. They might have a defamatory text or blatant vandalism added and no one would notice for months. This is not a problem for high profile articles like Edison. FloNight 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Supercharger edit -- personal info

This edit has been reverted, but it included someone's phone number. Should it be removed from the page history? -- Coneslayer 00:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It might not be real, but I'll take care of it. Thanks for bringing it up. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sandyvandy

I put a warning on Sandyvandy's talk page regarding blatant vandalism of Al-Kateb v Godwin. They responded by vandalising my talk page. Does this warrant a block? Chovain 01:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This user just removed this section (only to be reverted by someone else) - can someone please block them? They're being a royal pain. Chovain 02:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Indefed, someone is checking for socks -- Tawker 02:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

John Reid

John Reid recently reinserted highly uncivil language bordering on personal attacks into template:wr3. Warning templates are generally applied by users with the substitution syntax, so that the current text of the templates is inserted into the edit history of the users who apply them. Consequently, the insertion of highly uncivil language is disruptive because it is putting the uncivil language in the edit history of the user applying the templates. John Reid also threatened me with a severe, unspecified, retribution if he were blocked for disruption or if I were to revert his edits: he states that "Don't bully anybody into thinking you have more in your hands than a mop. If you try to bully me, you will see I don't accept it lightly." and "I'm the best friend you've got outside your RW faction. You don't want to lose me." [105] Whatever the nature of John Reid's open-ended threat, I would consider it to be disruptive as well. John254 02:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Grandmasterka has reverted, I've protected it temporarily (no communication between me and Grandmasterka by the way, though I've seen him around) until yet another party takes a peek at the whole situation and determines how to respond to it all. Obviously, my protection may be unprotected/modified/etc... by any admin, no need to inform me, etc etc. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked John Reid for 24 hours for disruption ([106], [107]) and trolling ([108]). Ral315 (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Support block. Good move. We should not tolerate this. – Chacor 06:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like overkill to me, seems no consensus was reached at the template talk pages. Catchpole 09:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of John Reid's behavior was really deserving of a block. To be honest, I'm not completely clear on the situation, but it looks like he and John254 are engaged in an editing dispute, which tends to produce heated rhetoric. I don't think his language on the template talk page corresponds to a threat, per se. I'm not going to lift the block (I've mentioned this to Ral315 on IRC), but I'm not sure blocking was the best course of action. --Slowking Man 09:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• This block is inappropriate. Reid wasn't trolling, and certainly not making "open-ended threats". Rather, this is a rehash of the ongoing debate whether removing talk page warnings is a blockable offense. Reid's version of the templates isn't very nice, but neither is "stop this or we'll block you". I would likely have unblocked if not for the fact that Reid asked us not to. Instead, I would suggest mediation between Reid and 254. >Radiant< 09:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• From what I can gather Reid objected to the 'you may be blocked for removing warnings' wording on the grounds that it isn't true (admins seldom block for such - especially as alot of users place highly questionable warnings). In place of that he was trying to redefine the purpose of these 'do not remove warnings' templates to cover people who habitually remove perfectly valid warnings and then continue the disruptive behaviour. His wording was over the top and I tend to think that such people are rare, blocked repeatedly, and thus don't really need to have warnings displayed on their talk page to identify them as trouble... it's all in the block log. Personally I'd like to see these templates go away and would have said so when they were TfD'd had I known about it. Every other day we have some kind of problem related to this 'users cannot remove warnings' philosophy coming up on this page. User talk pages exist to promote discussion... not for harassment or as a 'wall of shame'. The whole concept is just wrong. --CBD 11:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone were to TfD them again, I wouldn't mind either. A note here would be wise since the people who actually have the power to enforce the template language (but don't) hang out here. I don't see how it helps to have warning templates that threaten blocks that most admins do not support. Thatcher131 11:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with TFD is that, in this case, it's backwards. There appears to be no consensus on this issue either way. That means that we cannot make it policy (which would require consensus in favor) and neither can we delete the templates (which would require consensus in opposition). The prime solution, of course, is rewording the templates to match reality. >Radiant< 12:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, that's exactly how the current nom at WP:TFD appears to be going. If anyone would like to help rewrite the templates, that would be cool. JYolkowski // talk 02:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Likely sock of Joehazelton

207.67.146.62 (talk · contribs) is likely a sockpuppet of banned user Joehazelton (talk · contribs). Consider the similarities to IP addresses such as 207.67.146.232 (talk · contribs) and 207.67.146.146 (talk · contribs). Also, compare [109] (anon) to [110] and [111] (Joehazelton). Is checkuser necessary? NatusRoma | Talk 03:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

He's not banned, but blocked indefintely. However, this looks like a simple range block could be done if it is really that necessary. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I should have said that he was indef blocked. Two more newcomers with the same M.O.: 207.67.146.166 (talk · contribs) and 207.67.145.200 (talk · contribs). NatusRoma | Talk 07:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

UVic Wiki

I happened to come across the University of Victoria Wikipedia page and noticed that a 'Hempology 101' club was added to the page. However, it stated some illegal content [The use and drug possession] which is in contradiction with the Criminal Code of Canada. Should this be removed? Please reply in my talk page. --Cahk 04:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been taken care of by another user. Please ignore--Cahk 05:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a real club(there biggest), yes illegal, but waht does that have to do with anything?

Wikipedia is not censored. We can discuss illegal activities. I haven't reviewed the content, but let's not start a witch hunt to remove material deemed "illegal". User:Zoe|(talk) 23:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

HomeComputer

It should be noted that a whole section that tried to violate someone's personal privacy was removed. – Chacor 11:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:HomeComputer's username is too similar to User:Home Computer. This is an unambiguous block under WP:U. —ptk✰fgs 07:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're more than able to see that my account[112], created on September 28, is a full week older than User:Home Computer's[113]? Apology accepted. --HomeComputer 07:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, User:Home Computer has contributions going back to June 2006[114]. Please submit a user name change request. Have a nice day. —ptk✰fgs 07:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Please follow this link, take note of what you observe, and help me understand how that can be. I'm not arguing...I just don't get it.--HomeComputer 07:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Click on the link number 86 above. It clearly states "22:49, June 15, 2006 Home Computer (Talk | contribs) (New user account)" Gdo01 07:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The link you are providing only shows when the User's talk page was first edited and not when the user first contributed. Gdo01 07:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

HomeComputer, what you are looking at is the edit history for his talk page, not his contribution history. Ben W Bell talk 07:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A ha! Here it is. User:Home Computer changed his or her name from User:DJSamwise on October 1, which was still three days after me. No matter. I'll submit a request to change my name as soon as I figure out how. Glad to put that matter to bed. Now, may we return to the real issue?--HomeComputer 07:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Miami problems

There seems to be an anonymous editor who is taking it upon himself to scream "NPOV" and "needs source" at Miami University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I had thought that the anon was changing his IP, so a block for disruption would be pointless, but after MiamiDolphins made the connection that this guy was annoying people at both articles, his IP suddenly changed, but it's the exact same edit. He's saying that there are weasel words, and that we should go by a four month old talk page discussion, even though those issues have been solved. I do not think that a block is right, nor do I feel that semi-protection is necessary at this stage, just yet. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The IPs are as follows (note the similar style in edit summaries as well as USE OF CAPS)

• 71.111.186.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 134.134.136.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

134.134.136.5 seems to be a dynamic or shared ip. One of its contribs is to list of Intel chipsets which is apparently not the page the user would target. IMO semiprotection is warranted. ~crazytales56297 ^{O rly? Ya rly!} 04:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fake sockpuppets? (Karmafist & Primetime)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yungun seems to be attracting supposed sock puppets of banned users. WardOn13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FlightCopy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claim to be socks of Karmafist, and Primetime4000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims, of cource, to be Primetime. I doubt those editors would both be suddenly interested in this minor musician. Any guesses about what's going on? -Will Beback 10:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

See also: [115]. FireyFireMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -Will Beback 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And Wordywiseman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who claimed to be WordBomb. -Will Beback 11:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, assumption of good faith would lead to the conclusion that these people really are the blocked users they claim to be... and therefor should be blocked. Problem solved? --CBD 11:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking back to that AOL vandal, who sought to get blocked just to cause collateral damage to other AOL accounts. Is that still a problem? -Will Beback 11:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, it turns out that all of these accounts (and some others) were Karmafist socks. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/JoanneB Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karmafist. Thanks for Jayjg for sorting it out. -Will Beback 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that there has been some other fallout to this issue and at least one person has been blocked for being a suspected sock puppet of Karmafist and that editor is User:People Powered. The information I have is that this editor is NOT a Karmafist sock.--MONGO 21:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If any account claims to be a banned user ... then ban the account immediately. There's no other even remotely acceptable action. --Cyde Weys 23:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I've been told through an intermediary that Karmafist denies responsibility for this particular mischief. -Will Beback 06:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Koenraad Elst

Elst has declared his interest in the New Age movement. Here is the reference that motivated my first edit: [116] (see the description that arrives at the bottom. That description is from VOI, Elst's publishing house). Consequently I keep the word "neo-paganism", but cancel "right-wing" which seems to have triggered the reaction. I apologize sincerely for the misunderstanding. TwoHorned 11:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible bot?

I feel bad about this, and I wish I could unblock him soon. But a brand new user Foxwhox (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) suddenly comes up and starts editing at upto 9 edits per minute tagging dead redirects for deletion. It seems like it could be a special purpose bot account (unless someone is very enthusiastic and manages to click/type that fast). I have been going through CAT:CSD for over an hour and there was another new user tagging redirects for deletion: Zhanghai (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), though nowhere near at that speed, perhaps they are related.--Konst.able^Talk 12:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

He's claiming not to be a bot. That's quite the edit rate for a non-bot. Alphachimp 12:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems odd a brand new user is doing maintenance chors, I say unblock and keep an eye on him. Gotta WP:AGF as always.--Andeh 12:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. My gut tells me this is the bottiest bot ever to bot: it's a brand-new user doing administrative tasks, using full edit summaries (though, admittedly, the summaries are unhelpful), and working at an incredibly fast pace. I think we should wait for his explanation for how he's doing this so quickly before we unblock. -- Merope 12:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone who can make (and has made) 9 edits per minute with nothing more than judicious use of a tabbed web browser and a pre-prepared list of pages, and who has also written 'bots, I can confirm that 9 edits per minute is achievable by a human and deliberately slow for a 'bot. Uncle G 15:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, I often rock the tabbed browsing and whip through a bunch of minor edits in one go, but not with individualized edit summaries. Still, the point about a new user picking dead redirects as his first foray into WP is what really gets me. Who does that? -- Merope 19:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is no damage being caused then there is no danger in assuming good faith. HighInBC 15:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Dead redirects is one of the types of edits Maru was doing with his unauthorized bot. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki. Thatcher131 17:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Syeduo is doing the same thing.Geni 19:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

O no he is fixing Wikipedia ... wait ... its not causing problems and its doing work you don't want to ... yet there is complaints ... who would complain if some random guy decided to clean the city streets ... I really do not see what the problem is here, unless someone complaining cares to do the work themselves, it seems like a non issue, if the bot has problems ban it, if not why complain? blah blah WP:BOT I dont want to hear it, its about the spirit of the policy not the letter of it. --NuclearZer0 19:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I need my medication =). I really do not get the harm, but the above obviously could have been written friendlier and less sarcastic, my apologies for that. --NuclearZer0 19:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The weirdness is in that these are brand-new users. To use your analogy, a guy picking up trash off the street wouldn't be weird, unless he'd spent his entire life in a cave and this was his first day in the real world. Then you'd wonder how he got the idea and the knowledge to do those things. (Okay, crappy example.) It's not a bad thing, just a weird thing. -- Merope 19:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't quite picking up trash, either. This is more like someone from Nebraska arriving in New York City for the first time and making corrections to the bus schedules. Helpful indeed, but not typical behavior for a tourist. There are a couple of issues here. One is that bots require approval; to keep them from running too fast, to have someone else review the code, and to make sure there is a human available in case the bot screws up. A second issue is that if this is Maru, he has been warned repeatedly about unauthorized bots, and some of his bots in the past have made mistakes, that he was rather indifferent to. Further, Maru is a few days away from an Arbcom decision that he may not use a bot. (Which could have been avoid entirely if he had been willing to go through proper channels to have his bot approved; which mystifies me entirely.) I don't have a particular opinion about this bot, or even if it is a bot, but if it is a bot it should go through channels and if it is Maru, he should have to follow the ruling in his arbitration case. Thatcher131 20:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest bringing this discussion to the ArbCom's attention and presumably if they feel a need they will do a checkuser as well. JoshuaZ 21:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To address what some people have been saying. Bots are not always fully automated and unsupervised, it can be just someone running some manual scripts but editing at a fast rate. These all need community approval (WP:RFBOT) to make sure that there is no harm, which obviously has not ben done here. Apart from flooding CAT:CSD together with the other user I mentioned, and causing a massive backlog, there was no damage done in the current redirect tagging (all deleted now) - but what if he would have misfired? Or if at that pace of 9 redirects per minute would have continued for much longer, CAT:CSD would have been so completely overflowed that other pages needing speedy deletion (perhaps more urgently that dead redirects) would have been left undeleted for longer. Maybe it would be much more beneficial to just get admins to go through the redirects themselves without filling up CAT:CSD. Of course this issue was not discussed at all, while of course it is a good faith editor he needs to go through the proper channels for approval.--Konst.able^Talk 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is no approval process for a human making edits. I repeat: 9 edits per minute is achievable by a human. I, for one, can edit at that rate. It is also deliberately slow for a 'bot. If this is a 'bot, it has complied with the requirements to limit the rate at which it edits. Uncle G 11:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... a few days ago we had an apparent bot doing rollbacks on wikibooks (from an admin who had otherwise been MIA for many months). Kinda looked like a test to me (though again, it wasn't an unreasonable series of changes that were made, just rather startling to see so many rollbacks in the log within such a short period of time). I wonder if there's some new software floating about somewhere that's being tested out. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 11:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Green Fish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & sockpuppetry

• The Green Fish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lokqs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Weedro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 83.249.79.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems all to be the same user, according to their style of editing, behaviour, and article editing history. I came across this user after edits on Classical liberalism, Operation Gladio and Belgian stay-behind network. In the first this user was reverted by another user [117]. In the second article, Operation Gladio, this user removed a fact flag, and re-inserted material that is already available at Belgian stay-behind network [118]. In the latter case, this user tries to re-insert conspiricist information all linked to one source who is not an expert or writer about the Belgian stay-behind network. Is a checkuser warranted here, or should this be dealt differently? Thanks for any help. Intangible 13:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The return of quickpolls

A poll has been started on whether a certain user should be banned [119]. While I have no familiarity with the case or the user (who at first glance seems to be problematic, and has an RFC), I question the usefulness of a poll to decide upon a community ban. Thoughts, anyone? >Radiant< 13:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I also have no prior familiarity with the incident, however just to comment about polls deciding a community ban, I'm completely against it. A community ban issue should probably be the result of free-flowing discussion, not votes. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the incident either, however polling is a find way to aid discussion. As long it is not taken as straight voting. If you look at that page, yes they are polling, but they are explaining their votes.

I am sure that consensus will be based on those arguements and not simply a tally. HighInBC 13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Er, no. By my count, at least half of the participants are not in fact explaining their votes. >Radiant< 14:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That is my point, by your count. Now if you see somebody saying that the way they counted a poll should determine consensus than that is wrong. The people who did not comment, did not contribute much to the discussion. However the method is still a good way to talk. It is not polling that is evil, it is using the results of a poll as a reason to do something that is evil. imho. HighInBC 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Quickpolls were widely considered to be a mess - this poll should probably be stopped with an explanation that that's not the way we do things here. --Improv 14:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but for more information please scroll up this very page to the discussion titled "Is a community ban appropriate in this case?" which is where this (talk of blocking, not the original dispute) all started in the first place. MrDarwin 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A few comments: first, the poll was initiated only after User:Brya had been blocked by an admin (see discussion above), with the agreement of several other admins but after the objection of at least one editor. The poll was announced in the discussion on this page as well as on the project page. Second, perhaps it wasn't clearly stated but the poll was never intended to be a vote to block or ban Brya, but rather a poll to see whether there was support for blocking or banning, an action that had already been taken. Third, most of the votes are indeed explained, if you take "agree with MrDarwin", after I had made comments that others apparently agreed with and saw no need to expand upon, to be an explanation of their votes. MrDarwin 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Darwin is correct. That poll was run concurrently with an ANI discussion (not in a vacuum) to gauge how other members of the community who are not usually invovled on ANI felt about the matter. Methinks too many people are allergic to the word poll, however it is a valid form of discussion. No one has said this was binding or the last word. pschemp | talk 22:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. While binding polls are bad, polls are not neccesarily bad. HighInBC 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User: 151.198.85.18

I've warned this guy over and over again and he just won't stop his constant vandalizing. Please block him. Mnpeter 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Try making a post here Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism after being sure he has been properly warned. HighInBC 15:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 31 hours by another admin. --W.marsh 15:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing on Deflation (economics)

An ip user from the 87.117.200.* range is editing disruptively on Deflation (economics). He is reverting to a version that includes unverifiable (read, innacurate) statements, and that attempts to push a fringe POV on economics. He is unable or unwilling to provide sources for his claims, though I have requested them multiple times. I would appreciate intervention. Thank you. JBKramer 17:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have provided sources to Mr. JBKramer, he's refusing to acknowledge them. He also called me a racist and threatened to "Spank me." I was quite shocked at the accusation and his threat to sexually assult me. 81.117.200.27 17:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This allegation is false. Review my edit history and block the disruptive editor, please. JBKramer 17:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to your latest IRC msg to me. Of course it's not on your edit history, but I kept logs. 81.117.200.27 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not on IRC. JBKramer 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are. Why must you distort the truth, which is also known as "fact creating" when those facts you are attempting to create do not hold water? I must protest your increasingly sexual overtoned language, your threats of assualt and sexual assault, your attempts to undermine the very system that holds our fabric together, and your oitose attempts to smear me before the community. Please cease and desist. 81.117.200.27 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

He is fishing, don't bite the lure, nobody is going to believe him without evidence. HighInBC 17:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fishing. These allegations are very true. 81.117.200.27 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I doubt that these allegations are true, I can check because I'm connected to #wikipedia. I'll check it when I return to my main machine. Shadow1 (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, this was a private message, not in channel. 81.117.200.27 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, what's the nickname you were using at the time of the incident, and what's the nickname JDKramer was using? Shadow1 (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was using 'HardKnockInTx' and he was using 'JBKramer' on DALNet. 81.117.200.27 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On DALnet. Really. Why were you discussing this on DALnet? Shadow1 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't set mode +i, so he was able to /who me by IP I guess. 81.117.200.27 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "official" channels are on freenode. Any other networks are not used by Wikipedia and we can't enforce anything based on actions that happen on other networks. Naconkantari 17:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, I was just bringing up the fact that I have logs of him threatening to spank me like a little "aryan monkey child." That's assualt and sexual assualt. 81.117.200.27 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Logs can be forged. Shadow1 (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that. Thank you for letting me know. I brought this up to defend myself from the collective "not in good faith" attitude this group has shown me during this 30 minute long ordeal. 81.117.200.27 17:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith. The original discussion was about the edit war you and JDKramer are conducting on deflation, yet you claim you were threatened by JDKramer but cannot produce verifiable evidence. Shadow1 (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls, it only encourages them. HighInBC 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Editor is still abusing my talk page. JBKramer 21:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Naconkantari 21:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Persistent incivility and personal attacks

Jaakko Sivonen (talk · contribs), who calls himself at his userpage "A Finn and a nationalist" (a very rare breed, btw), expresses a regrettable attitude towards other editors who happen to disagree with him, resorting to accusation of vandalism and name-calling. He has been warned before about unwarranted vandalism accusations but the warning had no effect on him.

Today, he again accused users who disagreed with him in vandalism[120], and called his opponent "an idiot"[121].

After that he was sternly warned, but again to no effect as he continued calling the disagreeable to him edits "vandalising"[122] and issued a response where he persisted with his accusations.[123]

Since the user has been warned enough times and seems to not be getting it, a block may be in order at this point. --Irpen 18:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I second Irpen's request. Despite the previous warning, this user accused today of vandalism both myself and Irpen, called us both idiots (once, twice), responded to Irpen's warning in a very defiant tone, etc. He objects to calling the Grand Duchy of Finland (1812-1917, part of the Russian Empire) "a Russian-controlled puppet state" and insists on replacing Swedish names with the Finnish ones in an article about a medieval Swedish castle. Everyone who disagrees with him is either a "vandal", an "idiot", or a "Russian nationalist". I'm really disappointed that admins would readily block a long-standing contributor for expressing his opinions, while trolls are allowed to roam Wikipedia and shout personal attacks unimpeded. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm; perisitent incivility; regrettable attitude toward those who disagree with him; name-calling and accusations of vandalism; unresponsive to warnings about his behavior. Well, if it has got to the point of being disruptive I guess a block is in order. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him/her for 31 hours.--MONGO 20:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sosomk disruption of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Khoikhoi 2

Hi,

User:Sosomk is currently disrupting the said RFA by adding personal attacks and insults directed either against Khoikhoi or against people trying to either support him or remove his attacks.

Examples: [124], [125], [126]

Attempts to remind him of the NPA policy by Inshanee ([127]), User:Errabee and myself has led to nowhere (cf. our respective talks). Furthermore, he removed my remarks from his talk page with summaries like "cleaning crap": [128], [129].

Consequently, I would appreciate if an uninvolved admin could sort this out. Thanks, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: when advised by User:Errabee to investigate my conduct before throwing accusations, Sosomk labeled me a Russian "Neo-Nazi" or "Neo-Bolshevik" skinhead. This is very insulting, especially from a user whom I don't know. If I had said anything like this, I would have long been blocked for 48 hours or more. Talk about double standards... --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but it looks like a couple of IPs are also doing the same thing (probably the same user). At least two have been blocked already by other admins. --Coredesat 19:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just blocked another (222.149.155.76). Please block these on sight and remove their edits. This kind of racist smear campaign should not be tolerated. Gwernol 19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Barbatus reported Khoikhoi on AIV for no apparent (verifiable) reason. I removed it. --Coredesat 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, 203.115.1.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) done that, signing as Barbatus (I don't know the situation, but that could be an attempt to fling the shot at someone else!). Thanks/wangi 20:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Never mind, it was 203.115.1.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who messed up Barbatus' report of another vandal. --Coredesat 20:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, I got edit-conflicted after I realized it. --Coredesat 20:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked 220.218.159.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 220.228.145.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thanks/wangi 20:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that the IPs were related to this user (it doesn't seem like his MO), but I've spoken with him and he has agreed to leave the RfA discussion alone. I also made it clear that one more personal attack would result in a block. I will monitor his edits and the RfA (which I won't participate in, so as to remain neutral). -- Merope 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that the two IPs I initially blocked for 24hrs were open proxies, i've indef blocked them. Thanks/wangi 20:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sosomk's behavior here is quite over the top. The personal attacks on the RfA, as well as the edit warring over them, and the very inflammatory comment Ghirla quotes above are bad. Further, he responds to warnings from two different editors with contempt for civility. While I pearticipated in Khoikhoi's RfA, this seems to me clear cut incivility and trolling, and I have blocked him for 24 hours Dmcdevit·t 22:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Distruptive editing by User:Worldhunt

The article on the World Hunting Association has been problematic, because editors apparently associated with the Association are desperate to eliminate all reporting of the widespread, high-profile criticism the Association has received. Previously I was involved in a long back-and-forth dispute with User:Pete1080. He started out simply vandalising the article but eventually he was engaged on the talk page, gradually grew more reasonable and finally a consensus appeared to be reached. That version was stable for many weeks, until User:Worldhunt came back on the scene. That user has repeatedly blanked criticism [130] [131] and maliciously altered external links to make them not work [132] [133], labelling some of these edits with a "minor" flag, and has persisted despite receiving vandalism warnings on User_talk:Worldhunt. I suspected judging by the name that he actually wished to dispute content, so asked him to take it up on the talk page. He has not done so in any meaningful way and has continued to vandalise, but he did make one comment describing my reverts as slanderous [134], so I have posted this request for investigation here rather than WP:AIV.--Russell E 19:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've issued a 24 hour block. Durova 13:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry on Linda Christas International School AfD

Could an admin please look into sockpuppetery on Linda Christas International School AfD

• Oppieangel2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be the same person as
• Butchalliran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thelystrom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tech27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GeorgeStanton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RolandPatina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ShirleyDobbins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Keepyoursocksdry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bestofseven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note Oppieangel2000's fairly disruptive edits to the AfD, eg [135] Pete.Hurd 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms all of these, and Synqopation (talk · contribs), Referee36 (talk · contribs), Julieismywife (talk · contribs), Buddydebrill (talk · contribs), and Manysummers (talk · contribs) as well. Dmcdevit·t 22:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I've blocked anon edits and account creation on an involved IP for a week, so there probably won't be any more. —Cryptic 22:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

All blocked indef except the main account, Oppieangel who is blocked for a week for massive sockpuppetry and disruption. pschemp | talk 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Drraymondridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appeared, and has that familar style. Pete.Hurd 02:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Goodness. You'd think the socks would at least make an attempt to disguise themselves. Blocked. pschemp | talk 05:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they don't have a course in "crafty" at that !school, go figure. ;) Pete.Hurd 05:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You do mean "school," not school... Don't know too many schools that are for-profit unaccredited corporations, which lack campuses and are built entirely around bizarre 501(c)4 political lobbying committees and wikipedia spamming. If it weren't for the prohibition on original research, I'd write a serious article about these guys... :-)Francisx 08:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Back as 71.142.241.76 with same style and tone (blocking probably futile, amusingly naive in persistence) Pete.Hurd 15:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• BettyCharette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) *sigh!* Pete.Hurd 21:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha! inuse & protected, Naconkantari brings a mop. Pete.Hurd 21:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Green hornet and AfD sockpuppetry

CheckUser reveals that Green hornet (talk · contribs) has engaged in sockpuppetry to attempt to influence the outcome of AfD. Stratafriend (talk · contribs), Bluetie46 (talk · contribs), Mj the deletionist (talk · contribs), and Friedchicken88 (talk · contribs) which have been involved in editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strata (band) and Strata (band), are all the same person. I leave any decision in this matter up to the community. Dmcdevit·t 21:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Green hornet for one week for sockpuppetry usage on AfD's. Blocked all other sockpuppets indefinitely. Nishkid64 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Puppetmaster Mattisse repeatedly removing puppetmaster tag

I've put it back 3 times, she has reverted 4. 3RR? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 23:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked accounts are allowed to edit their userpage at will. It's only the indef-blocked accounts that get the tags about being "sock masters" or whatever. Which begs the question: is this a good circumstance to indef-block? I think it might be. --Cyde Weys 23:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was considering a block, but I opted not to. I reverted back, and left a note on the user talk page. If the user continues to remove the notice from their userpage, then the user can be blocked. However, I do not believe a indef block should really be applied in this case. The user does make some positive contributions to the community. Nishkid64 23:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that as soon as Nishkid reverted, Matisse reverted, again: "removed harassment for fifth time byUser: Nishkid64 with User:Ekajati" Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm against any sort of block on this account. Mattisse is a good contributor, who has felt very got at by this whole process. A civil discussion is the way to resolve this. --Salix alba (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm considering just protecting the page so that it can only be edited by administrators for the time-being. The user has reverted too many times, and some other admin is bound to go crazy and block her/him for a while for repeatedly removing of the sockpuppetry messages. Protecting the page is the best option in my opinion. Nishkid64 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Salix, the problem with this user is that they won't talk. They're not discussing the matter in a civil fashion. I'm protecting the page to save Mattisse. Nishkid64 23:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, we don't use the sockmaster template as a scarlet A to brand editors who have made mistakes in the past. Per the comments above, we only use such templates on the user pages of permanently or indefinitely banned editors. I would strongly object to blocking Mattisse for removing a tag from his own user page when that tag shouldn't be there in the first place. In general, it's considered bad form to edit war over the contents of a user page belonging to an editor in good standing. I think it would be best to consider this a lesson learned for Ekajati and Nishkid64, and move on.

Obviously if Mattisse engages in disruptive behaviour (creating new sockpuppets, for example) it would be appropriate to consider a block. It's really not fair to block him for removing a template that shouldn't have been placed in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. On top of that, the template was removed for over a month and during all that time, the admin who originally placed it did not complain. If Ekajati has a problem with Mattisse removing this on his own page, he should IMHO take it to User:Hanuman Das directly. Regards, Asterion^talk 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Nishkid64 has seen fit to revert to a version of the user page with the tag and protect that page with the template in place. I'd appreciate further review here, if only to know if I'm totally out in left field here. I don't want to go unprotecting and removing the tag as the first shot in a wheel war, but it troubles me that a couple of non-admins (Ekajati and Ryulong) were edit warring with another editor over something like this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess the whole situation was a misunderstanding. I did not know when exactly to put a sockpuppeteer tag on a user page, and I frankly didn't think it was that big of a deal before you brought it up. If you believe that my actions were unjust, then by all means go ahead and remove the tag. Nishkid64 00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding a block of this user: IMO not yet, but the user must be warned about the words they choose (see Ryulong's example of such an edit summary above). They may feel harassed, but this is becoming uncivil on their part as well. – Chacor 00:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see how an editor might be a bit peeved when other editors keep erroneously – albeit with the best of intentions – replacing a sockpuppeteer template front-and-centre on that editor's user page. I note that Mattisse removed the template twice without comment, including once after a bordering-on-snide edit summary from Ekajati ("puppetmaster template may not be removed, you made the bed...").

I'm normally a stickler for civility, but I really would hate to see this issue further escalated when a user is upset because we admins happen to have made an error. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Put me down as someone who thinks this problem would go away if the admins who like to play cops and robbers would stop worrying about whether or not someone removes a warning from their talk page. Ξxtreme Unction 00:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Nishkid's comment above, I have unprotected the talk page, and informed Mattisse that he can do as he sees fit with it. I will emphasize my earlier advice to him to avoid incivil remarks and sockpuppets. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by Hasbro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Hasbro has been making homophobic personal attacks to other users, see the following diffs:

• Oh yeah, I can't wait until this turns into another William II/Edward II/James I article, with LGBTQ freaks co-opting the content with paranoid theories about faggot coverups in the English Royal Family. Fuck you and grow the fuck up. Hasbro 09:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) [136]

• Stop the libel and disruptions of Wiki to make points, which was the issue mocked. Fix the problem instead of make it harder on those who wish to take this encyclopedia seriously. Wiki is a dumpster if all you want is to let some people break some rules and other people have to follow other rules. I take allegations of homosexuality about English monarchs very seriously, but you don't care, do you? Faggot. Hasbro 13:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) [137]

The first attack was towards an IP and the second was towards User:Vary, an administrator whom likely is being cautious as not to block a user whom is personally attacking him. Can some other administrator take care of this situation. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 00:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've given him a 24-hour block. Feel free to evaluate/criticize. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have indef. blocked. Homophobic attacks are as egregious as racist attacks. Would you have only blocked for 24 hours someone throwing the "n" word around? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to indef block, the username is a violation. It is clearly the username of an established toy company that that user clearly does not represent. pschemp | talk

Looks like he'll not be around much anymore anyway: [138]. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have am extra complaint.

When my user page was reverted: User:Mattisse‎; 18:53 . . contribs) (Revert to revision 73364465 dated 2006-09-02 07:33:12 by Netsnipe using popups) it was reverted to a point before the sockpuppet label was put on again, revealing personal information that I don't wish to be available for personal reasons and that I had removed long ago. So now I can't remove my own personal information that User:Ekajati chose to reveal. I was told that it was an administrator that was doing it (which I did not think an administrator would do without due process) so I did not believe that part. Nonetheless, what I want private is now there against my will and there is nothing I can do about it. Mattisse(talk) 00:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC) May I please be allowed to remove the part that wasn't there to begin with when User:Ekajati started this? Mattisse(talk) 01:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. Per the discussion above, Nishkid64 is okay with removing the template. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

strange user page

can someone please view the contributions by MLCamp (talk · contribs) and the user page Yuckfoo 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are we supposed to be looking for here...? Are these related? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: I think that the above post was by User:Yuckfoo and stated "can someone please view the contributions by MLCamp (talk · contribs) and the user page [of MLCamp]. I agree that the page is very strange and deserves a look. --N Shar 04:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The edits aren't constructive, but they're not particularly destructive, either. The user page is a red flag, though, and may need to be dealt with. Wikipedia isn't a free webhost. --Coredesat 04:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Page recreation after deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Haunting of a House was deletion discussion that ended today, and two times so far the page has been recreated and speedily deleted again. Perhaps an administrator can protect the page from being created again. Harvestdancer 03:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I just salted it for you. --Improv 03:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faye Gabriel

I'm not really sure what to say about this. Discussion started out civilly, until AQu01rius quite reasonably suggested a merge. Suddenly 4 suspected single-purpose accounts (two anon users) appeared on the scene to "vote" merge as well. Then another user posted a somewhat inflammatory comment, to which several users responded with comments. Then one of the possible single-use accounts removed those comments. I reverted to replace them. Now the discussion is heading rapidly downhill. Could we have some administrator intervention, perhaps? At least some investigation of the suspected SPAs would be nice. --N Shar 04:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Situation is getting more serious, with personal attacks being made by User:WalterWalrus3. --N Shar 04:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Man what a stupid thing to get in a hissy fit about. It seems to be okay now, I added my opinion and the page is now on my watchlist, joining the ranks of hundreds of dead AfD discussions still on my watchlist. Grandmasterka 09:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Lobbying in AfDs

I am not sure if there is a specific blocking policy for editors engaging in lobbying if CfDs and AFDs, but I certainly know that it is a practice that is frowned upon. See Smeelgova (talk · contribs) and her recent contribs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Usually the first time we just say 'Don't do that again, please', unless it's a particularly tendentious debate and the editor really ought to know better or has a track record of trouble. With repeat offenses we tend to get more irate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Would be nice if you offer this advise to the editor. I tried, but the editor saw it as a threat. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hopeless. You asked nicely enough, the user's response appears to be bluster and wikilawyering. Not a good reaction, and unlikely to be helpful to their case in any measurable way. Guy 12:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have had similar issues with the same editor in the recent past. He/she is part of what appears to be an orchestrated campaign to engage in tendentious editing on any and all articles about Werner Erhard, EST, Landmark Education and anything else even tangentially related to those subjects. To make matters worse, there's also several editors engaging in equally tendentious editing on those articles from the other side (basically, one group thinks Erhard is God, the other group wants to vilify him). It is an amazing mess involving at least eight to ten editors, and it's going to get much worse if some admin (or group of admins) doesn't step in and put a stop to it across the board pretty soon. --Aaron 13:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Time for an RfC or mediation, I think - this is too complex for a simple whack with the cluebat to fix. Guy 15:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I get tired just by thinking about it... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll pass on the mediation/RfC idea; the subject matter is of no interest to me, so it's not worth the living hell that would result from the initiation of any sort of dispute resolution. --Aaron 22:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I GET THE POINT, I HAVE DULY TAKEN JOSSI'S ADVICE THE FIRST TIME HE GAVE IT. CAN YOU GUYS JUST ALL GIVE ME A CHANCE HERE? I DON'T EVEN REALLY KNOW WHAT AN RFC IS? JUST LEAVE ME ALONE AND PLEASE PLEASE GIVE ME A CHANCE TO LEARN FROM ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS PLEASE. IT SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE ALL GETTING ANGRY AT MY DISCUSSION, WHICH IS JUST ME TRYING TO LEARN, AND NOT MY CEASING OF ACTION THE FIRST TIME IMMEDIATELY AFTER BEING WARNNED BY JOSSI, WHICH I DID. ALSO DON'T APPRECIATE NOT BEING NOTIFIED ABOUT BEING DISCUSSED ON THIS PAGE. PLEASE SHOW ME THAT WIKIPEDIA CAN BE A WARMER COMMUNITY THAN THIS AND I WILL LISTEN IF YOU GIVE ME A CHANCE. Smeelgova 18:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

• I have gotten your advice, all of the above. I acknowledge that you are all a bit upset. Please give me some time to process and a bit of patience. User:Jossi and I seem to be getting along a bit more amiably, which is a good thing. Yours, Smeelgova 20:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Is this disruption?

User:Gene Nygaard has been moving lots of stuff around lately. His rationale was that articles which have Latin letters which are not in English alphabet should have redirects which have only English letters in it. Which is fine. And he created those "redirects" by moving the whole page. Which I think is not fine. He was warned by User:PANONIAN no to do that but he ignored him and proceeded by moving Chanoz-Châtenay to Chanoz-Chatenay. Now, I know there are some people who think English Wikipedia shouldn't have letters which are not from English alphabet, and there are those which think it should since it's native spelling and letters like â still are in Latin alphabet. But, what I wanted to ask was: if I think that Chanoz-Châtenay should be titled Chanoz-Chatenay, am I disruptive if I move the whole article (instead of just creating a redirect)? Aaaaand, am I disruptive if I move it the other way around? Because, it seems to me that current consensus on this matter is to keep the status quo, not to enforce one of this two solutions. Am I right? Or did the community come up with a policy on this since the last time I checked? --Dijxtra 08:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose WP:VPP is a more appropriate venue for this discussion. And yes, I consider Gene's moving spree disruptive. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He's been pulling this stunt for a long time, despite multiple requests to stop. --Calton | Talk 09:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dijxtra describes "two camps", those who think:

• English Wikipedia shouldn't have letters which are not from English alphabet
• it should since it's native spelling and letters like â still are in Latin alphabet

I'm in neither camp. First of all, keep in mind that there is a difference between manual-of-style issues, and the naming convention issues which deal with assigning the one slot available for an article's name.

The names of Wikipedia articles may contain diacritics, but those versions are not always the appropriate name to use. Our Wikipedia article is not at România, though a redirect from there does exist. Our Wikipedia article is not at Hồ Chí Minh, though a redirect from there does exist.

However, there are also only some, in fact a very few of the possible thousands of different letters with diacritics available in Unicode as single letters or in the more problematic combining forms (and others in use not available in Unicode even then), that see any significant use in the English language.

As pointed out in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics), "Diacritics should only be used in an article's title, if it can be shown that the word is routinely used in that way, with diacritics, in common usage."

In huge numbers of cases, diacritics have been slapped on article's names without any discussion of whether or not it is the appropriate spelling to occupy the slot available for an article's name. It might be; it might not be.

But when those moves have been made, then at least the redirect from the former spelling remains behind. Redirects don't solve all the problems; articles can still be hidden from many search engine searches as a result of these moves accompanied by spelling changes within the article itself.

Similarly, my moves for reasons along these lines don't disrupt anything. All the links to it still work. Entering the name with diacritics in the "Go" box still works. Nothing is broken, but in a great many cases something is fixed: former redlinks in other articles now get to the article. They will still get to the article even if somebody in the future moves the article again.

When article names do have diacritics, it is absolutely essential that:

1. Redirects are created from the spelling without diacritics (other common variants are a good idea as well). Redirects don't just happpen!
2. The indexing sort key be fixed so that articles will sort properly in categories, according to English sorting rules (note that without using sort keys, they do not sort in accordance with the rules of any other language either; they merely sort in Unicode number order). Categories don't just sort themselves automatically.

Gene Nygaard 09:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed: this is one of the reasons for having {{R from title without diacritics}}. Did you say there are more which require the same treatment? HTH HAND Phil | Talk 09:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are accusing me of being disruptive? When you just moved a page, without fixing the sort keys for indexing in categories? Will you please go fix that at least; then we can take up your shenanigans there later. Gene Nygaard 09:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Phil Boswell, what in the world do you think you are doing with this edit of the article discussed by Dijxtra in opening this discussion, where you have changed the indexing sort key from the correct [[Category:Communes of Ain|Chanoz-Chatenay]] to the incorrect [[Category:Communes of Ain|Chanoz-Châtenay]]. You are the one being disruptive, not me. Gene Nygaard 12:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to fix sort keys, do that. If you want redirects created, do that. Your moves of pages to wrong titles are disruptive, as the wrong titles are worse than the category sorting. Many people have told you so, but you have continued. Do you need to be blocked to understand who is being disruptive? Kusma (討論) 09:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

They are not "wrong titles". They are correct spellings in the English alphabet. We have every bit as much right to establish our own identity by using our own alphabet in our writing as the people who has no other way to establish their identity than to see how cute they can get with their letters. Most English-language newspapers, for example, choose to limit themselves to the English alphabet in most cases. It is much more disruptive to have it so that someone reading about something, someone, or some place in a newspaper cannot find an existing article about it in Wikipedia, than it is for some hot-headed chauvinist to enter his non-English alphabet spelling and get redirected to an article that doesn't use the squiggles in its name. Gene Nygaard 10:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

French diacritics are commonly used in English, so removing them is wrong. For example, "château" is listed in the OED. Kusma (討論) 11:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles in Wikipedia which contain words that have diacritics in French but which do not have diacritics in the name of the Wikipedia article. There are thousands of cases in which removing existing articles from French words with diacritics would not be wrong, either. Gene Nygaard 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

See here for a long thread on this user. His position is summed up by this diff; if people do not fix indexing or create diacriticless redirects, he claims he is entitled to move pages to achieve this.

There is an overwhelming consensus that using page moves to fix redirects and categorisation is disruptive; see the thread linked above, and [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144]....

The fact is that redirect creation and index fixing is useful; however, we do not have carte blanche to fix these things with any method. Sticking to this method just because it raises awareness, when there are other less inflammatory and disruptive ways of achieving the same end is an abuse of WP:POINT. What is most sad is that if after creating a redirect with a page move he then moved it back to its original title, he would have achieved all his aims listed above and there would be no outside complaints (as page-naming consistency would not have been broken and no double-redirects or time-wasting caused), and this discussion would not be taking place. I think intervention has become necessary. Aquilina 10:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please, can we do something about this? In a lot of cases he's inventing new Anglicised spellings for things that don't even have an existing common form in English. Creating redirects and fixing sortkeys is good, and it takes no extra effort compared to moving the page. —ptk✰fgs 10:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have left a strongly worded message for Gene. Creating a redirect is trivial, doing it by moving the article is not trivial, and is pointless and disruptive unless consensus exists to do that for WP:MOS reasons. Guy 10:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is past history here. Further, redirects against consensus, in either direction, are not disruptive, while movement is. So, if this user does not immediately stop moving without (or against) consensus, I'd support a block. Just as I did last time. I don't see that much has changed. The user did not get blocked but also apparently did not change behaviour. I don't actually care about the arguments pro/con, I care about whether the behaviour is disruptive. If the arguments are valid, non disruptive behaviour can nevertheless achieve the needed change. BTW I do not buy the "you didn't do A so I get to do B instead" argument. If A is needful, and doing so is not disruptive, while doing B is, do A. Don't do B instead, that seems obviously not the thing to do. 22,000 edits or no. ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It is no different from, and certainly no more disruptive than, a zillion other undiscussed moves, many of which are wrong. For example, the moves of Cesar Romero by Gaudio[145] and Joint Task Force Guantanamo by Matt Yeager[146] and the move of Jaromir Jagr by Ryulong[147]. Gene Nygaard 11:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't the type of moves people are complaining about here. Moving JTFG back to Joint Task Force Guantanamo is a justified move, for WP:NC reasons - it's the most common name. Moving Çandarlı to Candarli is not a justified move however, because you did it just because there was no redirect, not because of any argument of usage. There is a clear distinction between cases here, and the second type is disruptive, and these are what you have been told to stop. Aquilina 11:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are exactly the kinds of moves being discussed here. In some cases, I have undone them; in other cases, someone else has. The point is, when there has been no determination of the proper wording to occupy the one slot available for an article's name, I am just as free to indicate my opinion and preference by making a move as anybody else is. Sometimes my preference prevails, sometimes it doesn't, but that doesn't make my move wrong in any different way than the undiscussed moves the other direction. Gene Nygaard 11:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As a complainant, I sort of define which types of moves I am complaining about. The ones based on usage arguments are fine. The ones based on the arbitrary presence of a redirect are not. Aquilina 15:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not see whats disruptive if he is not edit warring over it, he is doing the move to incite comment, if people move it he doesn't edit war and its apparent to him others feel it should be in the native spelling, if they leave it, then its obvious noone cared. He is just being BOLD, and since there is no edit warring I really do not see the problem, are edit histories being lost? are messages being lost no the talk page? I mean what exactly is the disruption being caused by the moves? the 2 seconds it takes someone to move it back? If he is fixing category listings in some cases then just leave it be, at least if half get moved back then at least half got fixed according to the categories alphabetizing. --NuclearZer0 12:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He is creating work that others need to fix at articles that he is not actively editing. This is like changing British to American spelling, which is a blockable offense. Moving pages to incite comments is disruptive anyway. Kusma (討論) 12:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You say its disruptive, but what exactly is the disruption? What is being lost? is a page move really that hard to fix? Isnt he fixing the categories at the same time? If he was moving them to the correct location and losing redirects would that be disruptive, since its creating the need for other work to be done? If fixing some of these names create secondary work are you stating people shouldnt start something unless they can do it completely? I have in the past converted most of an article to cite news format for its references, is this disruptive because only half was in cite news then and I left work for someone else to finish it? If he moves a page and it gets moved back because of concensus what is the issue? he is not edit warring over them. Its like reverting a vandal, if he made 50 edits, do you revert everything or do you waddle through all 50 to find out which are legit and which aren't? Sometimes the mass edit way is the better direction isntead of starting and attempting to keep track of 60+ page move discussions. --NuclearZer0 12:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do cause disruption - some need admin intervention to repair [148], some cause mutliple double redirects [149] (which you are warned not to create), most leave practically every internal link needing redirection [150], some are just to little-used or incorrect transliterations [151] or out of step with every other article in its category [152] and overall it needs a small task-force of editors to watch over his contributions, repair all the problems which could have been avoided had he performed the changes in the way requested. And none of these moves was based on grounds of actual usage. Aquilina 15:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to add a note, JTFG is more common usage then Joint Task Force Guantanamo, I think people just do not realize that because they are looking up written mentions, where the person writing has to spell it out. Newspapers cannot simpyl refer to it as JTFG, much like they would write out Rolling On the Floor Laughing and not ROFL, its just proper to do it as such. However anyone who speaks of it will not be saying the full out words, but saying JTFG. --NuclearZer0 12:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"So and so did wrong thing X in case Y" is not permission for anyone to do wrong thing X in case Z. Moves without or against consensus, especially a lot of them, for articles you are otherwise not involved in, is disruption. Gene, you have been asked to stop. There is consensus that you should stop. Why is this not blockable if you continue? ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just don't throw in false statements like "against consensus". There is no rule that just because an article's name can possibly be written with diacritics, then it must have diacritics in the article's name (besides, there are often a whole lot of other possible variants involved, including more or fewer diacritics, anglicized descriptive identifiers ("fortress" rather than the foreign word "Festung" for example). Romania and Ho Chi Minh and Oscar Nunez and a whole lot of other articles show otherwise. Gene Nygaard 13:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not a false statement when you are part of an overwhelming majority of a large number of users all telling you the same thing. Aquilina15:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Just creating the redirects is fine, as is going around fixing category sort keys. However Gene's recent page move behavior is simply not acceptable. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just creating redirects to names with diacritics is "fine", too. That helps increase the chances the articles can be found, and that is just as effective in fixing redlinks in other articles as moving the page is. Furthermore, doing so does not screw up the indexing sort keys, as moving instead of creating redirects does, when the mover doesn't actually go and fix them. That does't mean that mass, undiscussed moves along those lines are, nor that such a move cannot be undone. Gene Nygaard 13:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems obvious from his contributions that Mr. Nygaard is a single-purpose account in spirit, if not in actual definition. He's a crusader, on a holy mission to purify the language from the heathen foreigners. That's probably a snarl of WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a soapbox, wikipedia is not a platform for defending the English language) and WP:NOR (Creating anglicized spellings for words which have not historically had them, just because "Ĉ" looks like "C", regardless of how it may be pronounced) somewhere. I'd recommend a community ban for him if he refuses to stop. And I'll bet a shiny, brand-new nickel that he refuses to stop. Ξxtreme Unction 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed solution

User:Ptkfgs has asked: "Yes, please, can we do something about this?". From what I've read now, it seems to me that comunity thinks that although Gene might have a point, he is proving it in a disruptive manner, which is forbiden by WP:POINT. What I propose now is a RfC. What good would it do? Well, it would clearly show whether community supports Gene's actions. Not his oppinion on non-English letters, but his actions. I suspect that the RfC would show that there is very little support for his actions. If that turns out to be true, the RfC should be considered as a final warning to Gene.

This is my first interaction with Gene, and I see that some of you have already been throught this discussion. So, if there's already been a RfC or if Gene was warned in some other manner, then I suppose we can take this directly to ArbCom.

What are your oppinions? Should we do a RfC, just warn him not to do that or take him to RfArb? --Dijxtra 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think we're actually proposing the third option, a community ban. There has been a previous rfc, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gene Nygaard, which indicates that there may be a behavioural pattern here, and so I'd support a community ban. Hiding Talk 15:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I should have checked. Well, what then, I suppose the second RfC doesn't make sence... so it is RfArb or community ban. I vote RfArb. --Dijxtra 15:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? That request for comment was totally, completely, absolutely of no relationship whatsoever to the current discussion. Gene Nygaard 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In particular:

1. It had nothing to do with article names and naming conventions.
2. It had nothing to do with page moves.
3. It had nothing to do with diacritics in any way.
4. It had nothing to do with redirects.
5. It had nothing to do with category sorting.

All it involved was a couple of people who wouldn't accept the proper capitalization and plural of the kelvin as a unit of measure, even when I included citations as to what was proper.

Gene Nygaard 16:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It was brought for "Imposing style preferences against consensus" (relevant), as well as incivility (which is related to this issue too: [153]). Relevant, if indirectly. Aquilina

No, you are just trying to use ad hominem attacks, trying to throw in something completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand rather than discussing the issues involved. I don't know why you have an ax to grind against me, but don't be making unsupported, false accusations here. Gene Nygaard 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I didn't bring the RfC up, although I was aware of it, and when it was brought up I made clear above it was only indirectly relevant. But what I wrote was neither false nor unsupported, because it was directly taken from this paragraph. Aquilina 18:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason we should require ArbCom when there is clear support for a community sanction. I propose that we ban Gene from unilateral page moves to "fix" diacritics, citing as precedent the SPUI case and others where page moves to support a particular view of what constitues the "correct" title have been decided to be disruptive. If he refuses to accept a community sanction then we go to ArbCom. We can propose a community sanction via an RfC, I guess. In the short term I see no problem with blocking him for a time if he continues the disputed behaviour. This should not prejudice his starting a debate on moving any given article, if there appears to be good reason to do so, but unilateral moves are out. Guy 15:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, so we could ban him from moving articles. If he feels an article should be moved, he can propose it WP:RQM. I just don't think we should indefblock him, that's all. I guess that ArbCom case would end up with him getting a ban on moving anyway. Yes, a ban on moving is the bes option, I think. --Dijxtra 15:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• We use RfC to see what the consensus is - to be honest, I think enough people have commented here and at the previous AN/I thread, and on Gene's talk page to make the consensus abundantly clear. Seeing as an active member of Arbcom has already asked him to stop [154], and there has been a previous recent user conduct RfC it might be worth taking straight to RfArb. Aquilina 15:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Brown (Morven) accepted my response to him without further comment. Gene Nygaard 15:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not replying does not necessarily indicate "acceptance", even though it does not preclude it. Aquilina 16:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, but it doesn't matter. Whether he in fact did accept it or not, it is very relevant to the reasonableness of my subsequent actions. Gene Nygaard 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• • ...although after reading Guy's comments above, the SPUI-type sanction works for me too. Aquilina 15:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A ban from page moves and specifically allowing/encouraging him to continue making useful redirects without the disruptive methodology would be something I could support (IANAA). -- nae'blis 15:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. Suggested tweak:

Gene Nygaard (talk · contribs) is banned from any page moves unless there clearly is an existing consensus (as decided/evaluated at the whim of the blocking admin, subject to review) in place either on the corresponding talk page of the aticle, or clearly referenced in the edit summary with a clickable link, and specifically encouraged to carry out useful redirects and category alphabetisation. The ban is to be enforced by short blocks at admin discretion, blocks to increase in duration if behaviour does not change, with an ultimate permanent ban from the community as last resort.

What do you think? In my view, ArbCom action is not required, consensus is clear already and they have plenty to do as is. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. If there is a clear consensus on the page move, there are other 1025 administrators to move it. This guy is on a verge of being baned from the community altogether. I say we block him for 24 hours for every entry in his move log starting from now. If 1025 administrators don't think there's a consensus on moving something, I don't think we should let him move it. He is a fine guy, 22000 edits is a great thing, but he just proved that he shouldn't be alowed to move pages. Period. He moves a page, he gets 24 hours. --Dijxtra 16:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There has to be an exit strategy... does this ban last forever? That's why I suggested clear consensus. If he is absolutely banned we will never know if he has changed his ways. That said I'm not driving here, just supporting what I see consensus forming to be and I am, as we all are, open to discussion, I would think. Community bans or article bans are an area we are still feeling our way about, so I'm not sure where this would be recorded even... seems impolite to hang it on his userpage forever, but it will get lost here quickly. No idea what to suggest (maybe there already is a page and i forgot) ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We can put him on 6 months probation. See, determining consensus for a move can be a bit tricky. He can always say "I thought that was a trivial move". He has a bunch of space for gaming the system out. If we forbid him moving the pages for 6 months, he'll get the habit of not moving the pages. And then in 6 months he'll think twice before moving something he shouldn't. I still think that an absolute ban for moving the pages for 6 months is the best possible solution. --Dijxtra 22:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose

Crying because there is more work for others to do is not solving anything. Just cleanup after the moves and ask the user to be more careful in the future. There seems to be much drama over nothing. --NuclearZer0 16:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, decide. Is it "nothing" or "more work for others". If somebody makes a mess, sure, you clean up after him. But you don't do that, you also discipline him so he wouldn't do that again. --Dijxtra 16:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What about your original point, Dijxtra? You said, "Aaaaand, am I disruptive if I move it the other way around? Because, it seems to me that current consensus on this matter is to keep the status quo, not to enforce one of this two solutions. Am I right?"

For example, User:Calgacus (move log has engaged in a flurry of moves such as the one for the article at Kenneth I of Scotland (Calgacus move). Is that acceptable? What could possibly distinguish that case? Gene Nygaard 17:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

One difference, of course, is that I have never engaged in wholesale moves such as Calgacus has. I've never moved more than a few in any category, even when there were hundreds I could have moved. Gene Nygaard 17:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about you. Not Calgacus. ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sign me up, Lar. Might want to detail the specifics of the ban, but yes, I'm all for saving arb-com time . This seems appropriate. Nobody here is talking about an outright, indefinite ban immediately. Gene is simply being put on notice that the community feels there are behavioural issues here, and these are the steps the community will take to ensure the issues don't create further disruption. Hiding Talk 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds like a good solution to me. Write it up. Put the notice on AN and User's talk page. Log it here. Wikipedia:Community probation. --FloNight 18:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• I wholeheartedly endorse this product and/or service. --Ξxtreme Unction 18:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Predictably, support. It's a shame it had to come even this far. Aquilina 18:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I didn't realise Gene was moving so many pages, and my experiences with those few I saw were not pleasant. One note: add a time-limit (everyone can reform), don't block him from moves pernamently.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Implementation of Gene Nygaard article move ban

I have placed a notice at Community Probation and on Gene's talk page outlining what consensus seems to be calling for above. Any admin can, after careful review of the facts in the matter, and a finding of a non consensual move, and with proper notice here and to Gene, enact a short block to enforce this ban if necessary. If this actually does not represent consensus please revert me. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Community ban for ParadoxTom

In his nearly 200 edits, ParadoxTom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited exclusively and obsessively the Jews for Jesus page and its talk page. Amazingly, in his month and a half here, he has managed to rack up seven distinct 3RR blocks for that same article, beginning on his first day here, two of which for one week each. He has of course been warned over and over again to no avail. He calls other editors' edits vandalism in order to justify his repeated edit warring [155] [156] [157], and many other times. He just deceptively reverted a denial of his unblock request. Aside from the accusations of vandalism, ParadoxTom has also engaged in incivility [158] and personalization of the issue: characterizing his conflict as a battle against other editors like Hums sapiens and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. His entire presence here is disruptive, and I recommend we consider extending this latest one week block to a permanent community ban. Dmcdevit·t 09:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy freaking god I count a single article edit on anything other than Jews for Jesus. Let's community ban him, for his sake more than anyone else's. Grandmasterka 09:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Community ban. Unquestionably. That is, a ban fomr that article and a block if the user fails to respect the ban. I have asked at User talk:ParadoxTom#Community ban whether the user will accept this or whether we should simply show him the door. Guy 11:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to get him to agree to conform to 1RR on that article, and he refused. So I doubt he'll accept the idea of a community ban on that article. But I support the idea.

On a related note, if you look at the history of his talk page, you'll see that User:Justforasecond has spent a lot of time egging him on, and encouraging him to game the 3RR rules (eg the old favorite argument "3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, therefore just describe the other side of whatever content dispute you are in as 'vandalism'"). Tom is surely responsible for his own actions, but I think this case demonstrates the importance of greeting new users and making sure they get good advice, instead of bad advice. Nandesuka 11:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked this user so he can engage in mediation, and informed him that if he violates WP:1RR on Jews for Jesus I will impose the discussed community ban without hesitation. Nandesuka 12:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I support this action. The minute he violates 1RR, off to the community ban train he goes... --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

New vandal User:Julius Broyne spamming user talk pages

Julius Broyne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who apparently has only had an account for a few minutes, is going around dropping nonsensical templates on various user talk pages (I just got hit with a {{defwarn}}), and is claiming on his talk page to be a bot of User:Tawker. Would someone please block? Thanks. --Aaron 10:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I blocked it him immediately. This was the second (I've seen) tonight. The first was Plantgerd making the same claim, Konstable got that one. Keep an eye out Glen 10:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! --Aaron 10:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

note: Tawker's bots follow a naming scheme: they are always prefixed with Tawkerbot. I recall a similar bot impersonation problem with Hornwynn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was claiming to be Linuxbeak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 's bot. ~crazytales56297 ^{O rly? Ya rly!} 05:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism & Trolling by User:Peksneak

Newly created user, first edit was vandalism to Template:SockpuppetCheckuser following trolling on DRV by opening "The Cult of Briefsism" and "Third briefs". Claims to be User:InvisibleSun on his userpage. Perhaps a returning vandal? CharonX/talk 11:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to leave a note here... I have blocked him for impersonating User:InvisibleSun.--Konst.able^Talk 12:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I blanked his spurious DRV and RFPP requests. --Aaron 13:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sock of Indefblocked User

• I'm gonna go out on a limb here (/sarcasm) and assume that JennyCanuck (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of indefblocked user JohnnyCanuck and by extension VaughanWatch. I'm gonna cross my fingers and hope that this isn't a sign that he's back for more, but in the meantime, an indef block here would be helpful. -- Chabuk 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You can add 67.71.85.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to that list as well. -- Chabuk 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

User:A Link to the Past

If someone doesn't address the trolling by this user at my talk page and Talk page archive, I'm seriously going to get pissed off. With edit summaries like [159] this saying "Did I make the baby cry" is not helping me with my anger problem. I suggest someone warn him about it. — Moe 19:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note on their talk page. I'd suggest that you not resort to personal attacks like this or you will be blocked as well. Naconkantari 19:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats the reason I posted here, I didn't want to make any personal attacks, but he revert wars on my userspace in two differant places over a AFD thats already over, it's getting out of hand. — Moe 20:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just blocked A Link to the Past for 24 hours. -- Steel 21:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And unblocked. [160]. -- Steel 22:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible mass spamming by User:194.200.167.69

194.200.167.69 (talk · contribs) has included links to www.bloomsbury.com in a huge number of articles. My worry is that (a) the biography provided for each author is very short and not terribly useful and (b) that it's a commericial site designed to sell books. All the examples I looked at the website in question served no useful purpose except to promote Bloomsbury's book sales.

Will someone with tools please revert these edits? Mikker ^(...) 20:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• seems to be a bigger problem than just that IP (bloomsbury.com )[161] Hu12 21:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the spam blacklist would be a possible solution. Naconkantari 21:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

VinceB

Despite warnings, a well-known vandal User:VinceB recently blocked for sockpuppetry has been repeatedly changing geographic and personal names into their Hungarian versions.[162][163] When I put a vandalism warning template on his talk page after he blanked whole sections of a different article,[164] he just removed it from his talk page and pasted it on mine. Although he has removed all the warning templates from his talk page, he has a long record of vandalism (up to test4) and personal attacks (up to npa3). Since he did not learn a lesson from his last block, I would like to ask you to block both him and his proved sockpuppets (see the list of IPs at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VinceB) again, before he does more harm.Tankred 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

48 hour block issued on User:VinceB. No recent activity on the IP addresses so I haven't blocked them. Durova 21:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing problems at article Salman Khan

Hello, everyone, I have several problems over at the Salman Khan article with User:LuckyS. I try to add references and remove dodgy sentence structure, but get reverted. [165] [166]

Also, comments on my talk page,[167] as well as on Salman Khan's talk page [168] are kinda rude and I get actually stalked: whenever I write something on other people's talk pages, there are comments from Lucky too. [169], [170], [171], [172]. Could someone help? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 00:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also would appreciate some help or advice in dealing with this user. He reverts all my changes to the article as vandalism, insists that there's a conspiracy against Salman Khan, and tells me not to edit Bollywood articles because I'm not Indian. I've tried to jolly him out of this truculent attitude [173] and all I get is more attitude [174]. Zora 05:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Smeelgova (talk · contribs)

Can someone neutral give some feedback to Smeelgova (talk · contribs) about the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of creating articles on books that are rather non-notable, as well on that user's style of writing that is pretty close to advertising?

These are articles on books added recently by this user:

• Crazy Therapies (book) (in AfD)
• Recovery from Cults (book)
• Combatting_Cult_Mind_Control
• Bounded_Choice
• Captive Hearts, Captive Minds

Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Also this one:

• Les Sectes

Response

• Crazy Therapies (book) (in AfD) - AFD will most likely deal with this one.
• Recovery from Cults (book) - I did not create this article. Actually, all I did on this one was add an infobox and some references, that doesn't seem to be grounds for bringing this up here.
• Combatting_Cult_Mind_Control - User:Jossi and I seem to have come to a consensus on this one on the talk page, I will edit it more as per some of his suggestions, but I need to take a short break from Wikipedia. Thank you for your understanding.
• Bounded_Choice
• Captive Hearts, Captive Minds

Yours, Smeelgova 00:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

Comments

Cutting and pasting dustjacket copy, blurbs, and book reviews (Crazy Therapies (book) is a pretty good -- or bad -- example of this technique) is NOT the way to go about writing an article. --Calton | Talk 01:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have responded to criticism in multiple areas and voluntarily edited said articles per suggestions from other editors. When properly cited, I did not know that it was not okay to cite above information. Thank you for the clarification. Yours, Smeelgova 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

• You were not "citing" information, you cobbling together "articles" out of found bits. --Calton | Talk 07:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, if that's what you perceived, then I apologize. I did not realize that citing in such a manner would be perceived as such, but I am still learning and will change as kind advice and suggestions are given. Smeelgova 07:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

• You know what, as I am still relatively unfamiliar with the whole AFD and notability process, I think the best thing is to let the whole AFD process play out (without recruitment of course) in its natural manner. Thus, I will learn and attempt to use better templating when forming new book articles, and if need be, they can be sent to AFD for the situation to resolve there. Trying to learn, listen, and adapt. Yours, Smeelgova 07:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC).
• the book Recovery from Cults (book) was created by user:Ed Poor, not by user:Smeelgova. I had submitted the article for AFD because of what I perceived as a lack of notability, but it survived AFD. Andries 09:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

History of Pakistan

The following quoted paragraph from Pakistani historian Dr. Ahmad Hasan Dani website PAKISTAN - History through the Centuries is in dispute.

Pakistan, the Indus land, is the child of the Indus in the same way as Egypt is the gift of Nile. The Indus has provided unity, fertility, communication, direction and the entire landscape to the country. Its location marks it as a great divide as well as a link between Central Asia and South Asia. However, the historical movements of the people from Central Asia and South Asia have given to it a character of its own and have established closer relation between the people of Pakistan and those of Iran, Afghanistan and Turkistan.

PAKISTAN - History through the Centuries

This page is being repeatedly modified by some contributors. I have requested arbitration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration

00:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this claim is an opinion of somebody that is stated in the article as factHkelkar 00:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not an issue for this forum, use WP:3O Ashibaka tock 01:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Although this is off-topic for this forum, there's another problem: the link is to a Geocities site. Ahmad Hasan Dani is a respected scholar, but we really don't know whether this is an accurate representation of his opinion. Durova 01:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Periodic Table

on the periodic table article there is vandalism "IM A RETARD NAMED JOEY", i am not sure what to do, but felt it should be reported.--24.62.164.113 01:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just removed it. Feel free to remove vandalism yourself when you see it; it's always appreciated. Opabinia regalis 01:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(several edit conflicts) It's been reverted. See also help:reverting for how to take care of this yourself, if interested. --W.marsh 01:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I put a warning on the users talk page, test2-n... HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul Ainslie

The article on Toronto councillor Paul Ainslie has been repeatedly vandalized by User:Yumm99. I have reverted the edits each time (5 times in 3 days) but it is getting annoying. Can someone please place a warning against this user. Atrian 01:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I placed a test4 warning on the talk page. Any editor can place warnings: the place to find them is Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Regards, Durova 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet

Egher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nominated User:Psychonaut/User watchlist for deletion as an attack page one minute after being created. Apparently sockpuppets of User:JarlaxleArtemis have been doing similar stuff. TimBentley (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Porn spammer on Commons

Found a porn spammer on Commons, mass-inserting pages full of links on top of existing articles. The user in question is this IP. Oddly, they only seemed to do two pages before stopping. I reverted both the edits, but I'm not an admin on Commons and couldn't block the user. Maybe the sites in question can be added to the spam blacklist too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That should be reported here — Moondyne 04:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Blacklisted. Naconkantari 04:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Most people don't care enough to report it at all. Some people care enough to report it somewhere. Very few people are in the category that they care enough to report it someplace, don't know better than to report it here, and care enough to, without any futher motivation, act as if they are your paid subordinate and post it where you designate. WAS 4.250 04:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think Moondyne meant it that way. There are better and worse places to report these things, and I think (s)he was just meaning to point you at the best place to get things done about it. Take care. --Improv 05:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:203.219.181.10 (again)...Vandalism only

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

I previously posted a heads up about this static ip used solely for vandalism on Wikipedia [175]. The vandalism still persists, and the user continues to accumulate warnings on their talk page. Neil916 (Talk) 04:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Yidnek

New and very persistent account with poor editing skills, in the past two days continually changing the National Anthem of Ethiopia on the article Ethiopia and other such half-baked antics, refuses to engage in even one word of discussion. Left warnings on his talk, which have been ignored. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain in more detail? This user linked to a BBC audio file, which seems like a reliable source. Per WP:BITE I hesitate to block a user who's very new and appears to be making cited edits. Perhaps a friendly note about WP:3RR would be more appropriate. Regards, Durova 18:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already left the 3RR template on his page. I know he is new, but he has been asked to respond or explain on discussion many times and has refused, just simply repeated the same edit, every hour or so for the past two days. (First as an IP, then with the account). Since I can't get him to discuss, I don't know what else to do, so now I am coming here. I have not seen any source other than him to suppose that Ethiopia has changed its anthem from Wodefit Gesgeshi, Widd Innat Ityopp'ya. On occasion he has changed other bits of info in the Ethiopia infobox beside the anthem. He could at least explain why he is doing this non productive edit so insistently. To his credit, he has not edited since the last time I warned him, a few hours ago. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bring it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR if the problem continues. Durova 18:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Aquilina half-done moves

In light of Aquilina's participation in the discussion above, I don't appreciate bitching complaining in his edit summaries about "half-done moves"[176], especially when after Aquilina's move of that very article to Žilina District we now have that article misplaced and out of order in Category:Districts of Slovakia.

Will someone please go tell Aquilina to fix his own "half-done moves", here and any similar problems he has created. Gene Nygaard 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What's out of place in the cat? It starts with "Ž", not "Z". Thanks/wangi 18:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The good news is, there's no obvious problems with your eyes. But surely you've been around long enough, wangi, that a whiff of coffee or something could get the rest going. Just go up above where Aquilina shows himself to be quite aware of the problem, where he starts out "The fact is that redirect creation and index fixing is useful . . ."

Perhaps taking a peek at the navigation template that appears on the top of many, many categories, above the subcategories listing, would give you a hint. See, e.g., Category:French writers or Category:Brazilian footballers or Category:1924 births.

Just go see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)#Category sort key

• "When a diacritic is used in a page name, categories are used with a category sort key based on the variant without diacritic, regardless of alphabetization rules in the originating language,"

Then, of course, you might follow the link there, and go read about the sort key and sorting at Wikipedia:Categorization. Note also, of course, that not including the sort key does not result in the category being sorted under the rules of any language whatsoever; rather, the characters are sorted only in Unicode number order. Of course, sorting doesn't stop at the first letter, either. In that same Category:Districts of Slovakia, Bánovce nad Bebravou Districtis out of order not only in the English sorting appropriate here, but would probably be out of order in the sorting rules of any language whatsoever, and certainly out of order in the Slovakian language as well as in a huge number of languages. Note also that even in Slovakian language sorting rules (appropriate, for example, for the Slovakian Wikipedia), Žilina District is missorted in its category. It has been fixed to sort correctly in sk:Kategória:Okresy na Slovensku, however—using the same methods Aquilina needs to use to fix this problem he created here.

This is repeated many other places in Wikipedia as well. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Alphabetical order (which is by incorporation a Naming Conventions rule as well as a MoS rule, see WP:NC)

Now, will someone please get Aquilina to fix it. I'd likely have a hard time being civil about it myself, given his history with me. Gene Nygaard 10:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Blissful mind

Blissful mind has vandalized two userpages after the users reverted his vandalism to Kermit, Texas and the current events portal. See [[Special:Contributions/Blissful mind]. Please block him, as he has repeatedly been warned. KazakhPol 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

New user with only 4 edits, but all vandalism and 2 user page attacks...I've issued a 3 hour block. Durova 19:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Softie :-) Guy 20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay maybe...BTW, do you think this one week block (my very first) was too lenient? [177], [178] Durova 21:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats by 69.107.88.17

User:69.107.88.17 on Talk:OmniCode. Threatening legal action against Wikipedia if his company isn't mentioned, among other things. Already warned him with "no legal threats" on the discussion page. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't edited since the warning was issued. If he continues, he should simply be indef blocked. --InShaneee 19:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've left a templated warning (Threat2) regarding this. While the user is undoubtedly (and understandably) troubled by this, and Wikipedia is sensitive to his plight, there is a very good reason why we don't allow legal threats on the site. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

64.1.162.26 (talk · contribs) seems to be a sockpuppet address, and has continued the legal threats. *Dan T.* 22:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, blocked. Any further accounts threatening legal action on Omnicode's talkpage should be blocked on sight. I've also removed his ranting about legality and suing this site from the article talk page as irrelivant discussion. --InShaneee 22:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Dragonball1986

Dragonball1986 continues to add pointless content to pages, calling it vandalism in his own edit summaries, then reverts himself as if he's a different person. Furthermore, he often adds spaces just to comment using edit summaries, only to revert himself again. There's also the numerous ownership issues he has with basically any image, going out of his way to stuff them anywhere he can for no reason. I'm tired of trying to reason with this editor when all he does is file negative comments away on a selective warning archive page. I'm not suggesting he be blocked, but some kind of warning from someone he might actually listen to would be helpful to say the least. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Insane. Blocked for 24 hours. --InShaneee 19:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he suffers from Dissociative identity disorder ? ~Kylu (u|t) 19:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Or editcountitis. Durova 20:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Foobra

Could an admin please take a look at today's contributions from User:Foobra and determine what action, if any, should be taken. The edits that initially caught my attention were questionable changes to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, but today's other contributions appear problematic as well. Something is going on but I'm not sure what. Newyorkbrad 22:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In previewing this edit, I see that coding "User:Foobra" in brackets brings up the "Wikibreak" template, which also seems odd. Newyorkbrad 22:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked by User:FloNight. Durova 22:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Stalking by another user

User:Ryulong has been systematically following me around and reverting my edits on other people's talk pages. He has no business doing that. I asked him to stop but he hasn't. UCF Cheerleader 02:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you have only contacted me once, and I've removed comments that were strange, particularly asking whether or not you should have anal sex with your boyfriend. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

UCF is probably a sockpuppet/troll. —Centrx→talk • 03:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh? I hadn't heard of such a thing.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryu, do you have all of the noticeboard pages watchlisted or something? I for one was a little unnerved to see a response to my 3RR report within minutes of it being filed, as well as the rapid slew of responses after my initial comment to your comment. Hbdragon88 03:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There are IRC channels at which new edits are shown. At one, WP:AN3 and WP:ANI are both watched for edits (but I do have ANI on my watchlist). I have IRC set up so that if my username pops up, I get notified.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, that's pretty cool. Hbdragon88 03:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, a check of your contributions list will show that you reverted several of my edits in succession, including my request for Editor Review. Why did you do that? And why did you call me a "longstanding troll"? I don't know anything about this Akins account. Furthermore, its not up to you to decide what comments other people leave on other people's pages, is it? You basically lied to everyone when you said you only reverted "strange" comments as any check of your contributions will show. What they will show is unwarranted "stalking" if anything. Please stop it. UCF Cheerleader 03:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked UCF based on looking at his "contributions". —Centrx→talk • 03:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I was going to indef block based on that diff if Centrx hadn't already -- Tawker 03:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Jackp sock active again

User:203.57.68.20 is a confirmed Jackp sock, and after a month-long block, has returned to edit the same articles that got Jackp blocked in the first place. CRCulver 12:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Gah. I got tricked again! I keep on forgetting that Jackp has a known IP address and mistake him for an AOL sock. Every time I lift an autoblock on 203.57.68.20 such as I have done for Frank Skilton (talk • contribs) and Xanthoxyl (talk • contribs) (both with non-Jackp related editing histories, but stop right after the block is lifted), Jackp reappears on the IP address. I've reblocked the IP on AO for 6 months. In the meantime, can someone please refer the address to Checkuser to see how many sleeper accounts there might be. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)