Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive171

Zephram Stark sockpuppet

A new sockpuppet of Zephram Stark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be active. The Mirror of the Sea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He restored Coving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to an old ZS version. Separately, Grace Note is defending his edits with perhaps inappropriate vigor.[1] -Will Beback · † · 02:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think it would be "appropriate" to let me know you've written about me here? I don't have this page on my (very short) watchlist and I only know you wrote here because I suspected you would, rather than just let a minor issue go, seek to extend a conflict as far as possible. Why you think that is a better course than just letting the article stand is a mystery to me. There is nothing inappropriate about my defending the edit. I think it is useful. I don't know what went on with Zephram Stark. I know that editors I trust were opposed to him and I have some idea that he was pushing a POV. I had some idea of an ongoing engagement because he edited pages I have edited or looked at, but I don't usually read these long unfocused narratives that some people on those pages indulge in. I don't really have any awareness of his goodness or badness, or take any sides in the conflict, except, as I noted, that I know he was opposed by editors I trust. That is all.

But the article seems interesting to me. I think it can and should be allowed to live, regardless its provenance. Destroying interesting articles because of who wrote them doesn't seem a good idea. If Will has a problem with the content, he could perhaps focus on that. Otherwise, we seem just to have an extension of personal conflict that doesn't serve the encyclopaedia. As I say, I don't watch this page, and frankly, the days in which I was interested in pointless fighting over issues that neither I nor the other combatants are particularly interested in are long gone, so this is all I have to say about it. Grace Note 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article appears to consist almost entirely of unverifiable original research, which, as I recall, was the original objection to it as well. Has something dramatically changed since it was last re-directed in August? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it has, the practice of coving has been peer reviewed in the New York Times and other notable publications concerning topics such as these, seems its reputation is growing--Edchilvers 03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, though, currently only two sentences in the article have citations. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in these two citations you will find most of what has been written in the Wiki article. I just didn't see the point of putting the two exact same citations at various points in the article. The article was probably written by the guy who invented the process to be honest, yet the fact that it may have started out as original research does not deter from the actuality of it having garnered quite a large following since--Edchilvers 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Some good references have been added and some OR and unreferenced stuff removed. To Grace Note - nothing wrong with removing unreferenced stuff and OR. --Duk 04:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Zephram Stark. Thanks. — Mirror of the Sea Something To Say? 05:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not, but you certainly are the indefinitely blocked vandal account User:The Iceman Cometh. That's gotta count for something, don't you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wot, no block? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked the The Mirror of the Sea account and marked it as a The Iceman Cometh sock. -Will Beback · † · 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:JohnJohnJohnJohn

This is a repost from 2 days ago, with addendum. The previous post didn't really receive any attention.

Fraslet (talk · contribs) recently brought my attention to the fact that JohnJohnJohnJohn (talk · contribs), whose editing has certainly raised a few eyebrows, was possibly operating Orchardbank (talk · contribs) and Johnowenlangham (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets. John has now asserted that Orchardbank is in fact Malcolm Nicol, a Conservative Party councillor from Polmont, a town in Scotland which John comes from and has repeatedly made disruptive and bizarre edits in connection with. John also claims that, were that the case, Image:MalcolmNicol.jpg could be legimately licensed as GFDL-self by Orchardbank. Orchardbank has also made edits about Mr. Nicol, including this rather aggrandizing effort: [2]. I don't know if this is ready for a WP:RFCU, but I think it has become important to establish exactly what the real situation is here.

Since then Patstuart (talk · contribs) has placed a suspected impersonator / sock tag of no less than Willy on Wheels on John's userpage - I find it unlikely that John has even heard of WoW but stranger things have happened - and Mikkalai (talk · contribs) reverted this edit [3] by Johnowenlangham to Orchardbank's talk. What is the story here? Deizio talk 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Norm

Some vandal has decided that the departed User Norm (talk · contribs) is Willy on Wheels, and is repeatedly showing up with new accounts to vandalize User talk:Norm to that effect. I have reverted the Talk page to the last version left by Norm, and have protected the page. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like something WoW would do to some user for kicks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also protected User:Norm because it has been receiving similar attacks. -- tariqabjotu 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Check this out. [4]. Most interesting. He registered the account in 2004, and is right NOW using it for WoW vandalism. Antandrus (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect account compromize. It wasn't very long ago blank passwords were allowed by the system. 68.39.174.238 04:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that too; it's so out-of-character considering Norm's contributions elsewhere. Anyway I reverted all the damage on Commons. Seems like there aren't many people watching over there. Antandrus (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's for sure. I'm amazing some things aren't more disoriented then they are; I've had some nasty runins with that in the past. 68.39.174.238 06:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Norm was also used on Wikinews for vandalism. After two pagemoves I blocked it. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Countdown timer

Is there any way someone could glance at Countdown timer? It sure reads like advertising to me, but the creator keeps removing speedy delete tags on it. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong, but think it needs someone else's eyes on it at this point. 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Gwernol for the help! Philippe Beaudette 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Spacetimefilms

Spacetimefilms (talk · contribs) added a couple of articles on films. You'll never guess the name of the production company... Guy (Help!) 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it Columbia Pictures? :3—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparent inappropriate disruption in reply to a CheckUser request

About to sleep, have been looking at this but can't follow up. User looks like he's disrupting WP:RFCU (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Art Dominique) and User talk:Husond, in response to that RFCU linked. Would appreciate if an admin investigated/kept an eye on it. Thanks. – Chacor 17:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Gives the checkuser clerks something to do :) Thatcher131 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athelete arrests

Just wanted to get more eyes watching this, as it's starting to get absurdly bogged down in disruption, sockpuppetry, vandal removal of other users' comments, etc. Postdlf 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with anonymous editor on List of anime conventions, Anime South, and Tsubasacon

I would like to request administrator review over a situation I am having with an anonymous editor on three articles. The problems first occurring on Christmas weekend when the anonymous editor inserted a wikilink to Anime South onto List of anime conventions. I removed the link because it didn't meat the criteria listed at the top of the talk and summarized in the lead of the article. The anonymous editor kept inserting the link back in and made several excuses on the talk page as to why this convention should receive an exception before finally saying that the criteria is irrelevant.

During the same time, I also tagged several anime convention articles with the {{unreferenced}} or similar tags, one of which was on Anime South.[5] Later the anonymous editor changed the wording in a sentence that made it clearly speculative,[6] which I then removed.[7] After that, the anonymous editor restored the speculative statement and removed the referenced tag, which I reverted.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

The anonymous editor has also gone to Tsubasacon and put up an {{unreferenced}} tag,[15] which I requested another editor familiar with anime conventions to review.[16] so that I can avoid a WP:COI. After his removed the tag and added some sources, [17] the anonymous editor removed the sources and restored the unreferenced tag.[18]

This has came to the point were I think the anonymous editor is now being disruptive. I originally thought s/he was an Anime South staffer until after I found this topic on the Anime South forums yesterday. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To demonstrate the uncooperative-ness of these individuals (or person):

These self-righteous wiki editors have formed a group supporting each other so they don't get 3RR. We need to join up and form a posse of our own to fight the same way they do. Are you in? -Animesouth 08:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly admitting to wanting to violating policy. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible ID of anonymous editor

It has came to my attention that the anonymous editor may be Marcyu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who may also use a second account Animesouth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). known IPs used by the anonymous editor: 68.1.77.61, 68.1.73.33, 68.63.22.57, 68.1.74.54, 68.1.78.129. --Farix (Talk) 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It may also be wished to be pointed out that Tjstriker (talk · contribs) is likely included. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the person has a weird habit of not signing their comments, and removing any signed comments that are added by other users. It is beyond me why this person does this. I have seen edits from July by Marcyu (talk · contribs) where such is happening. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Include the IP 68.105.60.48 (talk · contribs) in the mix too. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. 68.1.60.33 (talk · contribs). Appears that the person is just changing their IP address at will. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pointy stick needed

Would somebody please have a gentle word with User:Barberio about the advisability of slapping standard warning templates on admins' talk pages in the middle of threads where they are dealing with other users. It's not a particularly helpful thing to do and stinks of WP:POINT given that he is in dispute with me at Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube and elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye, aye. I'm on it. -- Merope 18:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)#

Copy paste of PAIN report placed. Please make note of the last point. --Barberio 18:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent activity:

• Tells others to "F*** off" (without the stars). [19]
• Accuses others of "b**tching". [20]
• Removes npa warning templates from his user page. [21] [22]
• Blocks user who complains about it! [23]

This user seems to have problems not resorting to inappropriate behaviour in his disputes with other editors. --Barberio 18:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yawn. Please read WP:DICK in detail, this is becoming wearisome. While I do not condone telling people to fuck off, your npa3 warning was just ridiculous. That editor had made a clear legal threat and deserved his block and nothing Guy said to him was offensive. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and being wilfully offended is just as bad as bad as being wilfully offensive, and probably causes more problems. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect WP:DICK is not policy, WP:NPA is. --Barberio 18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

May I point you to WP:DUCK? ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and removing a warning from your talk page is not a violation of any policy. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the legal threat that the user SlamDiego was blocked for. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There was none. He said he 'felt liablled' by another users comments, which is not the same as actualy threatening a libel suit. (For what it's worth, SlamDiego's original complaint that JzG was replying to on WP:PAIN was overblown, but did not deserve the response given.) --Barberio 19:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling something "Libel, although I won't take action" seems to me to be skirting the edge of No Legal Threats. Kinda like "If I wasn't such a nice guy, I'd sue you. You don't want me to be a nice guy?"-ish —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Even so, it would have been better to point that out, rather than threaten with a block for something borderline in a dispute that could be settled by getting people to calm down. --Barberio 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The PAIN report is here for those trying to follow along. ---J.S ^(T/C)

To Barberio: my response to him was to thank him kindly for self-reporting his legal threat and express the hope that this indicated he would not repeat the offence. I thought that was a long way from harsh. It's only when he demonstrated that he both understood the message and didn't ave any intention whatsoever of heeding it that I got firm. It is much easier to deal with disputes if you don't have random people pitching into the middle of them, of course, especially when those people appear to be looking for excuses to oppose you rather than taking a dispassionate view of the case at issue. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue could have been resolved by simply stating the issue was not a grave attack, nor libel, and should be resolved just by a asking for moderated language. I attempted to do so.

Your threat of a block against the complaining editor was clearly escalating the issue, and your following this up with personal attacks of your own by telling the editor he was "b****ing* over it was further escalation, moving on to directly block the editor is an action I simply don't understand. --Barberio 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• [EC x several] HighInBC, SlamDiego characterised comments made against him by another editor as being "libel" while at the same time making equally aggressive and hostile comments about that user. I was in discussion with him about this and he made it perfectly clear that in his mind only attacks against him are libel. Full-on legal threats are grounds for immediate banning, in this case he was merely being aggressive and deeply uncool so I gave him a short block to calm down, with a comment to that effect on his Talk. Unfortunately Barberio chose to wade in and add further heat, for reasons known only to himself. I can't see any evidence that WP:PAIN was on his watchlist for any reason, although of course it could have been. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It has in fact been on my watch list for quite some time, due to reporting some personal attacks. --Barberio 19:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, so you did. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have commented out a slapfest above. I suggest we talk about the underlying problem of templating experienced users. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The comments by editors have been restored. --Barberio 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Users reading this may wish to review my new essay (in progress, other editors welcome, and if you can think of a catchy name please move it, but Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, because templating the regulars is a mistake. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Now all we need is WP:NOJERRYSPRINGER MartinDK 19:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not have left templates, but at the time of the incident, that's what WP:PAIN required. I agree that the requirement to add specific templates to the talk page, rather than being able to phrase a more suitable warning, was probably a bad part of the process. --Barberio 19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I like - to both :o) Incidentally, Barberio, you seem to be confusing WP:PAIN with WP:POINT in your above comment. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Having mulled this over on the way home and also prompted by Hipocrite, I have unblocked SlamDiego. He was being a dick, but probably not to the extent that he needed stopping right now, which is what blocking is for. However, I have also told him that describing other users' comments in a content dispute as libel, however heated things might have become, is extremely unlikely to help. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How is calling another user a 'dick' more helpful than describing another users' comments as libel? KazakhPol 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone a wp:dick isn't the same as making a statement which could be construed as a wp:legal threat. Argyriou (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And after being pointed that way, some people realise they've been stupid. Guy (Help!) 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say that, having looked at WP:PAIN, I agree with Moreschi's comments above. there are some genuine cases, but most of the complaints boil down to little more than "Mummy, he called me silly...", and are usually made by people who are engaged in an editing dispute and are trying to use this as back route to getting their own way. Admins should surely be trying to douse these flames, but too many seem happy to pour petrol on them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, Martin, that's precious enough that I've created a redirect: WP:JERRYSPRINGER. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• The issue here is really external links and YouTube, but rather than resolving the dispute Barberio is attacking people on the other side of the dispute, specifically JzG and Dmcdevit. I warned Barberio earlier this week against attacking or falsely accusing other users; in reaction, he forbade me from editing his talk page. If he doesn't stop he should be blocked. >Radiant< 09:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:ThomasK and [24]

I know I committed a lot of vandalism. I apologize to all affected. I´m now redemped and going to fight vandalism. Please unblock the IP and the account. Thanks

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Delinquent Road Hazards

This AfD was closed as a Delete by Khukri but the article was never deleted. It was subsequently tagged speedy by Pd THOR because it was not deleted. I'm not familiar with Khukri so I don't know if they are an admin who closed the AfD and just didn't delete before logging off or if they are a non-admin who just closed the AfD, but could someone have a look?--Isotope23 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Khukri does not appear in the Wikipedia:List_of_administrators, but AnonEMouse has taken care of the deletion. —bbatsell ¿? 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

... Some people type faster than others. I was just coming to say that. Will make a pointed comment on User_talk:Khukri. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Actually, Khukri also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carraigin Castle as a Delete but didn't delete it because he apparently isn't an admin. I don't know the protocol on closing AfD's when you are not an admin, but isn't it a rather bad idea to close something as a delete if you can't actually delete it? Someone might want to say something to him.--Isotope23 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Majorly said something to him about that one, after I did about the first one. It looks like Khukri had also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaps (game) (2nd nomination) as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian extremism as delete (Majorly cleaned up those as well), but then Khukri had also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan as keep (missing that the last person showed the most recent revision was a copyvio!), and did something highly confusing at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Template:WindowHome. Curiouser and curiouser, as said Alice. Needs a bit further investigation. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, after further investigation, I'm willing to believe he worked in good faith; he hadn't done it before Jan4, and got in over his head. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... I wasn't suggesting bad faith here; I think he honestly is trying to help out on AfD, but in so doing is making alot more work for any admins who try to sort these out. Your message on his talk page looked like the right call to me.--Isotope23 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Wikipedia:List of administrators was linked above, but I get the impression that that list is more to find active admins. To check whether someone is an admin or not, Special:Listusers/sysop is the definitive list I believe. Carcharoth 11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Delinquent Road Hazards

This AfD was closed as a Delete by Khukri but the article was never deleted. It was subsequently tagged speedy by Pd THOR because it was not deleted. I'm not familiar with Khukri so I don't know if they are an admin who closed the AfD and just didn't delete before logging off or if they are a non-admin who just closed the AfD, but could someone have a look?--Isotope23 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Khukri does not appear in the Wikipedia:List_of_administrators, but AnonEMouse has taken care of the deletion. —bbatsell ¿? 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

... Some people type faster than others. I was just coming to say that. Will make a pointed comment on User_talk:Khukri. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Actually, Khukri also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carraigin Castle as a Delete but didn't delete it because he apparently isn't an admin. I don't know the protocol on closing AfD's when you are not an admin, but isn't it a rather bad idea to close something as a delete if you can't actually delete it? Someone might want to say something to him.--Isotope23 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Majorly said something to him about that one, after I did about the first one. It looks like Khukri had also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaps (game) (2nd nomination) as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian extremism as delete (Majorly cleaned up those as well), but then Khukri had also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan as keep (missing that the last person showed the most recent revision was a copyvio!), and did something highly confusing at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Template:WindowHome. Curiouser and curiouser, as said Alice. Needs a bit further investigation. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, after further investigation, I'm willing to believe he worked in good faith; he hadn't done it before Jan4, and got in over his head. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... I wasn't suggesting bad faith here; I think he honestly is trying to help out on AfD, but in so doing is making alot more work for any admins who try to sort these out. Your message on his talk page looked like the right call to me.--Isotope23 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Wikipedia:List of administrators was linked above, but I get the impression that that list is more to find active admins. To check whether someone is an admin or not, Special:Listusers/sysop is the definitive list I believe. Carcharoth 11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tell no lie

User:Tell no lie repeatedly reverts to unacceptable content on the Reuben Singh article. The user simply keeps re-inserting the same manifestly inappropriate text (violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP), each time with the same edit summary (one that violates WP:AGF), and refuses repeated requests to discuss the matter on the talk page. Neither friendly suggestions nor vandalism warnings on User talk:Tell no lie have had any effect. I reported the problem at WP:AIV, but an admin there considered it to be beyond the WP:AIV jurisdiction, and removed the entry.

The user generally shows up every few days to do the reversion, so a 24-hour block might not even be noticed until it's over, but it might send a message before we do a longer block. JamesMLane t c 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked for WP:BLP violations. This person really does seem unlikely to be reformable, but if he acknowledges fault on his talk page, then by all means he should be unblocked. Morwen - Talk 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Stanley port

New account that has made about 100 edits in the last 3 days all to his own commercial painting selling site [25]. In spite of warnings he has continued doing so. This user needs to be blocked. Arnoutf 12:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done already (thanks to a report at WP:AIV). Kusma (討論) 12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Arnoutf 12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

User:71.80.36.167, User:71.80.39.173, User:24.151.175.18 and 160.91.231.124 appear to be unblocked sock puppets of banned User:Scottfisher / User:Scott_fisher; as may be User:Patty_rising (if not, the latter is acting in close collusion, since Image:Popper.JPG has previously been uploaded by Fisher, claiming to be the photographer, then removed as he had a history of claiming others' pictures as his own. See User_talk:Scottfisher). 15:54, 3 January 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.36.97 (talk • contribs)

• I have blocked for a month User:71.80.39.173 and User:24.151.175.18. The other two anonims have not edited for months. User:Patty_rising is quite possibly also a sock: they edited the same articles (e.g. Image:Popper.JPG or Rick Stuart but I cannot find a positive proof. Can you refer me to the previous name of Image:Popper.JPG? Alex Bakharev 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Probably 'John Popper of Blues Traveler.JPG'; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Popper&diff=25080124&oldid=24924681. BTW, both of those you blocked resolve to Charter Communications. See [26]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Delinquent Road Hazards

This AfD was closed as a Delete by Khukri but the article was never deleted. It was subsequently tagged speedy by Pd THOR because it was not deleted. I'm not familiar with Khukri so I don't know if they are an admin who closed the AfD and just didn't delete before logging off or if they are a non-admin who just closed the AfD, but could someone have a look?--Isotope23 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Khukri does not appear in the Wikipedia:List_of_administrators, but AnonEMouse has taken care of the deletion. —bbatsell ¿? 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

... Some people type faster than others. I was just coming to say that. Will make a pointed comment on User_talk:Khukri. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Actually, Khukri also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carraigin Castle as a Delete but didn't delete it because he apparently isn't an admin. I don't know the protocol on closing AfD's when you are not an admin, but isn't it a rather bad idea to close something as a delete if you can't actually delete it? Someone might want to say something to him.--Isotope23 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Majorly said something to him about that one, after I did about the first one. It looks like Khukri had also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaps (game) (2nd nomination) as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian extremism as delete (Majorly cleaned up those as well), but then Khukri had also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan as keep (missing that the last person showed the most recent revision was a copyvio!), and did something highly confusing at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Template:WindowHome. Curiouser and curiouser, as said Alice. Needs a bit further investigation. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, after further investigation, I'm willing to believe he worked in good faith; he hadn't done it before Jan4, and got in over his head. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... I wasn't suggesting bad faith here; I think he honestly is trying to help out on AfD, but in so doing is making alot more work for any admins who try to sort these out. Your message on his talk page looked like the right call to me.--Isotope23 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Wikipedia:List of administrators was linked above, but I get the impression that that list is more to find active admins. To check whether someone is an admin or not, Special:Listusers/sysop is the definitive list I believe. Carcharoth 11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tell no lie

User:Tell no lie repeatedly reverts to unacceptable content on the Reuben Singh article. The user simply keeps re-inserting the same manifestly inappropriate text (violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP), each time with the same edit summary (one that violates WP:AGF), and refuses repeated requests to discuss the matter on the talk page. Neither friendly suggestions nor vandalism warnings on User talk:Tell no lie have had any effect. I reported the problem at WP:AIV, but an admin there considered it to be beyond the WP:AIV jurisdiction, and removed the entry.

The user generally shows up every few days to do the reversion, so a 24-hour block might not even be noticed until it's over, but it might send a message before we do a longer block. JamesMLane t c 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked for WP:BLP violations. This person really does seem unlikely to be reformable, but if he acknowledges fault on his talk page, then by all means he should be unblocked. Morwen - Talk 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Stanley port

New account that has made about 100 edits in the last 3 days all to his own commercial painting selling site [27]. In spite of warnings he has continued doing so. This user needs to be blocked. Arnoutf 12:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done already (thanks to a report at WP:AIV). Kusma (討論) 12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Arnoutf 12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

User:71.80.36.167, User:71.80.39.173, User:24.151.175.18 and 160.91.231.124 appear to be unblocked sock puppets of banned User:Scottfisher / User:Scott_fisher; as may be User:Patty_rising (if not, the latter is acting in close collusion, since Image:Popper.JPG has previously been uploaded by Fisher, claiming to be the photographer, then removed as he had a history of claiming others' pictures as his own. See User_talk:Scottfisher). 15:54, 3 January 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.36.97 (talk • contribs)

• I have blocked for a month User:71.80.39.173 and User:24.151.175.18. The other two anonims have not edited for months. User:Patty_rising is quite possibly also a sock: they edited the same articles (e.g. Image:Popper.JPG or Rick Stuart but I cannot find a positive proof. Can you refer me to the previous name of Image:Popper.JPG? Alex Bakharev 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Probably 'John Popper of Blues Traveler.JPG'; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Popper&diff=25080124&oldid=24924681. BTW, both of those you blocked resolve to Charter Communications. See [28]

Block review

I have indefinitely blocked Huansohnrecordz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for continuously uploading images without source or copyright information. Since November, this user has uploaded 100 images all of which have been, or will soon be, deleted. The user has no contributions outside of these images. If you look at his contribution log, there's maybe 3-4 things in there and its his current uploads that haven't been deleted it. He's never actually used these in articles as far as I can tell. I post this here for block review. Metros232 14:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ehhhhh... Maybe he needs a human warning explaining things to him? An indefblock without a non-bot warning seems a bit stiff. Maybe a short block with an explanation (to keep him from uploading today), and then monitor the account to see if he keeps up? And then block away. -- Merope 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm good with the indefblock, perhaps with an added note about how to use {{unblock}}. The account had 6x10^23 botwarnings with no indication of reaction. I'd rather the user have to go and email or post an unblock than have to discover in 2 more months another 100 images to be deleted. Syrthiss 14:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. What Syrthiss said. -- Merope 14:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: As a disinterested observer in this matter, I would like to support Syrthiss'above comment. I think the {{unblock}} should be presented as a matter of course to users who are being given an indef block, since many are relatively new users who may not be aware of what recourse they have. Jeffpw 14:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why I brought this here. In many situations, I would have gone Merope's route: given one final warning. However, it was the lack of contributions outside of the images that led me to this block. If he was attempting to improve the encyclopedia with the images and was just misguided with the licensing, that's one thing, but since he's just uploading for no real purpose, I went the block route. Metros232 14:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on unblocking at User_talk:Huansohnrecordz#Blocked. Thanks for the input. Metros232 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I go with the unblock remarks; a new editor who just doesn't what he is doing may get blocked indefinitely (no argument there) and confuse it with infinitely. Giving the unblock reference shows the difference. Arnoutf 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a while back that we include {{unblock}} instructions in the standard block notice templates, but was shouted down. I still think it can't hurt. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

{{vblock}} includes such instructions, but it's a vandalism-specific template. When I can remember, I try to use that or include a note after the template with instructions, if I use a standard template at all. Knowledge of {{unblock}} is crucial. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It never hurts to mention the {{unblock}} option. But seriously, blocking this user was much better than giving another warning. 51 weren't enough, so I sincerely doubt 52 would have been. And users who don't care about copyright issues can create Ginormous Messes. Mangojuice^talk 17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, MediaWiki:Blockedtext, the page displayed to visitors on the receiving end of a block, already contains explicit information for appeals, including {{unblock}}. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

One more block review

I've just indef blocked this vandalism-only account of Whatno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't even really need a review, FayssalF. Good riddance to a waste of pixels. I've also speedied his two vandalism images he uploaded. Syrthiss 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think deleted makes more sense as a verb than speedied (sorry, minor grammatical annoyance). --Cyde Weys 16:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem.

User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix. Someone mind explaining to me again why keeping the history would deter new Esperanzas and show other users what a horrible mistake it was? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems a bit POINTish to me. – Chacor 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There's also User:Feureau/UserBox/EsperanzaReturns. Borderline T1? >Radiant< 17:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So much for my canned smart-ass remark about needing a userbox...Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've checked Geo.plrd's contribs, he's mass spamming every member of Esperanza he can find. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A block for gaming the system might be in order? – Chacor 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support this. WP:POINT violation + an attempt to skirt abundantly clear community consensus. —bbatsell ¿? 17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Can someone block/add stiff warning to everyone who signed up and edited it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just left a note re this issue at their talkpage. Let's wait and see. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree on giving a cooldown block to Geo.plrd for this double-whammy violation. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree about an immediate block. He's just received the first/final warning re that. They are offline now. Once they are back we'll see what their reaction would be. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He made a comment after your warning that seemed to indicate that he was going to continue the "Phoenix" project anyway, but that doesn't matter. The best indicator will be what he does after his recreations are deleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted the warning at 17:25, January 4, 2007 while their last edit was at 06:02, January 4, 2007. Nothing to lose if we wait anyway. Yes, knowing about their reaction to the deleted subpage would be interesting. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, duh. I read "06:02" as "6:02pm". --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Any reason why I shouldn't just nominate this at mfd? --Spartaz 17:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already there: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix. —bbatsell ¿? 17:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd contend it's speediable. Not explicitly in WP:CSD, but quite obviously a flagrant breach of consensus reached at the Esperanza MFD, which is what a new MFD would turn into. – Chacor 17:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dang! --Spartaz 17:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conlict x 4) (now slightly out of date) It is a concerning violation of WP:POINT, going directly against the opinions and consensus generated at the MfD of Esperanza. Are the project pages there deletable/redirectable to Wikipedia:Esperanza, rather than hashing out an Esperanza Mk II MfD? I don't feel that a block is appropriate unless Geo goes against the warning posted. Martinp23 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I just speedied the userpages per CSD G4. I don't think that a block is in order unless the user persists. The userbox is more problematic; I'll let some other cold-hearted bitch admin take care of that. -- Merope 18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Should have guessed that JzG would be the "cold-hearted" admin I referenced. -- Merope 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Though "not the way to do it" is not the most informative deletion summary ever. I'd have expected some link or reference to the Esperanza MfD, and/or a CSD criteria. Carcharoth 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The user can hardly be ignorant of it, but in any case I left a lengthy comment on his Talk - much more than would fit in a delet summary. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. On a side issue, I was actually, out of curiosity, trying to figure out the timeline for when they created the userbox and Phoenix respectively, but as they were deleted, that is more difficult to figure out now. Could you, or someone, note the date and time of creation of the pages in question? A day later, a few hours later, or whatever. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix created 05:13, January 3, 2007, userbox created 06:43, January 4, 2007. —bbatsell ¿? 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Phoenix was a working model. Geo. 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a working model complete with bureaucracy and talk page spamming for members. -- Merope 18:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT and Phoenix/Esperanza Returns

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_5#User:Geo.plrd.2FPhoenix -- Speedily deleting it yesterday had no effect; deletion review is now up. Any other admins want to take a stab at this? -- Merope 19:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Geo.plrd has withdrawn his DRV. The userbox is back, however. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Delinquent Road Hazards

This AfD was closed as a Delete by Khukri but the article was never deleted. It was subsequently tagged speedy by Pd THOR because it was not deleted. I'm not familiar with Khukri so I don't know if they are an admin who closed the AfD and just didn't delete before logging off or if they are a non-admin who just closed the AfD, but could someone have a look?--Isotope23 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Khukri does not appear in the Wikipedia:List_of_administrators, but AnonEMouse has taken care of the deletion. —bbatsell ¿? 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

... Some people type faster than others. I was just coming to say that. Will make a pointed comment on User_talk:Khukri. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Actually, Khukri also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carraigin Castle as a Delete but didn't delete it because he apparently isn't an admin. I don't know the protocol on closing AfD's when you are not an admin, but isn't it a rather bad idea to close something as a delete if you can't actually delete it? Someone might want to say something to him.--Isotope23 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Majorly said something to him about that one, after I did about the first one. It looks like Khukri had also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaps (game) (2nd nomination) as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian extremism as delete (Majorly cleaned up those as well), but then Khukri had also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan as keep (missing that the last person showed the most recent revision was a copyvio!), and did something highly confusing at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Template:WindowHome. Curiouser and curiouser, as said Alice. Needs a bit further investigation. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, after further investigation, I'm willing to believe he worked in good faith; he hadn't done it before Jan4, and got in over his head. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... I wasn't suggesting bad faith here; I think he honestly is trying to help out on AfD, but in so doing is making alot more work for any admins who try to sort these out. Your message on his talk page looked like the right call to me.--Isotope23 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Wikipedia:List of administrators was linked above, but I get the impression that that list is more to find active admins. To check whether someone is an admin or not, Special:Listusers/sysop is the definitive list I believe. Carcharoth 11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tell no lie

User:Tell no lie repeatedly reverts to unacceptable content on the Reuben Singh article. The user simply keeps re-inserting the same manifestly inappropriate text (violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP), each time with the same edit summary (one that violates WP:AGF), and refuses repeated requests to discuss the matter on the talk page. Neither friendly suggestions nor vandalism warnings on User talk:Tell no lie have had any effect. I reported the problem at WP:AIV, but an admin there considered it to be beyond the WP:AIV jurisdiction, and removed the entry.

The user generally shows up every few days to do the reversion, so a 24-hour block might not even be noticed until it's over, but it might send a message before we do a longer block. JamesMLane t c 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked for WP:BLP violations. This person really does seem unlikely to be reformable, but if he acknowledges fault on his talk page, then by all means he should be unblocked. Morwen - Talk 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Stanley port

New account that has made about 100 edits in the last 3 days all to his own commercial painting selling site [29]. In spite of warnings he has continued doing so. This user needs to be blocked. Arnoutf 12:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done already (thanks to a report at WP:AIV). Kusma (討論) 12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Arnoutf 12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

User:71.80.36.167, User:71.80.39.173, User:24.151.175.18 and 160.91.231.124 appear to be unblocked sock puppets of banned User:Scottfisher / User:Scott_fisher; as may be User:Patty_rising (if not, the latter is acting in close collusion, since Image:Popper.JPG has previously been uploaded by Fisher, claiming to be the photographer, then removed as he had a history of claiming others' pictures as his own. See User_talk:Scottfisher). 15:54, 3 January 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.36.97 (talk • contribs)

• I have blocked for a month User:71.80.39.173 and User:24.151.175.18. The other two anonims have not edited for months. User:Patty_rising is quite possibly also a sock: they edited the same articles (e.g. Image:Popper.JPG or Rick Stuart but I cannot find a positive proof. Can you refer me to the previous name of Image:Popper.JPG? Alex Bakharev 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Probably 'John Popper of Blues Traveler.JPG'; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Popper&diff=25080124&oldid=24924681. BTW, both of those you blocked resolve to Charter Communications. See [30]

Block review

I have indefinitely blocked Huansohnrecordz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for continuously uploading images without source or copyright information. Since November, this user has uploaded 100 images all of which have been, or will soon be, deleted. The user has no contributions outside of these images. If you look at his contribution log, there's maybe 3-4 things in there and its his current uploads that haven't been deleted it. He's never actually used these in articles as far as I can tell. I post this here for block review. Metros232 14:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ehhhhh... Maybe he needs a human warning explaining things to him? An indefblock without a non-bot warning seems a bit stiff. Maybe a short block with an explanation (to keep him from uploading today), and then monitor the account to see if he keeps up? And then block away. -- Merope 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm good with the indefblock, perhaps with an added note about how to use {{unblock}}. The account had 6x10^23 botwarnings with no indication of reaction. I'd rather the user have to go and email or post an unblock than have to discover in 2 more months another 100 images to be deleted. Syrthiss 14:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. What Syrthiss said. -- Merope 14:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: As a disinterested observer in this matter, I would like to support Syrthiss'above comment. I think the {{unblock}} should be presented as a matter of course to users who are being given an indef block, since many are relatively new users who may not be aware of what recourse they have. Jeffpw 14:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why I brought this here. In many situations, I would have gone Merope's route: given one final warning. However, it was the lack of contributions outside of the images that led me to this block. If he was attempting to improve the encyclopedia with the images and was just misguided with the licensing, that's one thing, but since he's just uploading for no real purpose, I went the block route. Metros232 14:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on unblocking at User_talk:Huansohnrecordz#Blocked. Thanks for the input. Metros232 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I go with the unblock remarks; a new editor who just doesn't what he is doing may get blocked indefinitely (no argument there) and confuse it with infinitely. Giving the unblock reference shows the difference. Arnoutf 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a while back that we include {{unblock}} instructions in the standard block notice templates, but was shouted down. I still think it can't hurt. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

{{vblock}} includes such instructions, but it's a vandalism-specific template. When I can remember, I try to use that or include a note after the template with instructions, if I use a standard template at all. Knowledge of {{unblock}} is crucial. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It never hurts to mention the {{unblock}} option. But seriously, blocking this user was much better than giving another warning. 51 weren't enough, so I sincerely doubt 52 would have been. And users who don't care about copyright issues can create Ginormous Messes. Mangojuice^talk 17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, MediaWiki:Blockedtext, the page displayed to visitors on the receiving end of a block, already contains explicit information for appeals, including {{unblock}}. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

One more block review

I've just indef blocked this vandalism-only account of Whatno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't even really need a review, FayssalF. Good riddance to a waste of pixels. I've also speedied his two vandalism images he uploaded. Syrthiss 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think deleted makes more sense as a verb than speedied (sorry, minor grammatical annoyance). --Cyde Weys 16:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

PAINful situation

Now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard--Doc^g 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User blocked accidentally

It appears Frankyboy5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is autoblocked: "I cannot edit anything all because somebody with the same IP as me has been vandalising everything, even though I signed in!". Could an admin go and have a look please? Yuser31415 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we a little short on active admins at present? Yuser31415 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we just can't do anything without the information in his block message. I see Syrthiss is working on it now, though. -- Merope 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeh. For the future Yuser31415, if you respond to a helpme on a user encountering a block please ask them to put {{unblock}} at the very least on their page. That guarantees that anyone working on unblock requests will see them in the category of blocked users asking for unblocks. Syrthiss 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol I see you already did they just didn't do it. In any case, Frankyboy5 says he is unblocked so this matter is closed. :) Syrthiss 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Yuser31415 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid wall -- Request enforcement of AfD decision

There was a dispute some months ago over whether Apartheid wall should be a standalone article, a redirect to Israeli separation barrier, a redirect to Allegations of Israeli apartheid, or deleted outright. An AfD in June 2006 (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall) settled this issue, with a decision of "The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier.", and that decision was implemented.

On December 28, 2006, an editor changed the redirect to point to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Attempts to change the link back are reverted within minutes by that editor. Please take appropriate action to enforce the AfD decision. Thanks. --John Nagle 21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars over an inappropriate redirect. WP:LAME. I am nominating the redirect for deletion; it's divisive and unnecessary, as no articles link there now that I have removed the totally unneeded link on Jews Against the Occupation. But regardless of opinion, the AfD decision was a long time ago, and this can be revisited. Mangojuice^talk 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hundreds of links... to a good site

Is plbman (talk · contribs) spamming? He's added almost a hundred links to the same site... but it's a pretty neat site. Is this a violation? A helpful addition? Something nefarious that I'm not quite smart enough to work out? I could use a little advice. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he's affiliated with the site, adding this many external links is unquestionably fishy, and constitutes spam. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

They are all different online books. They happen to be hosted on one website, but they are all part of the Open Archives Initiative. This is not substantively different from adding a bunch of links to different books on Project Gutenberg. It's being suggested that this is WP:COI, but these are good additions and who else is going to make them if he doesn't? I suggest we let him WP:IAR as long as the edits are good. — coelacan talk — 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Coelacan. Unless the edits are shown to be bad edits, these should be allowed due to the nature of the links. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's been a suggestion that the links would be best used as citations in the text. That is true, but also a lot more work and I think Plbman's contributions should be reverted back into place and used as they were (external links) until they can be integrated as citations. I just want to make sure we aren't asking Plbman to bring a {{shrubbery}}. — coelacan talk — 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree; the way this was dealt with is unfortunate. The links seem solid and certainly shouldn't simply have been removed; at worst, they could have been moved to the talk page as likely useful references. I definitely don't agree that it was spam. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks god for IAR. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, did anyone review these books. They are all archived studies and publications from the California Fish and Game that date as far back as early 1900s. They were digitized and organized as part of a project that is managed by plbman under a federal grant. In most cases they are being added to articles that have no or few External links and in many cases the relevance is questionable. My question is would anyone add these links on their own based on the merit of each of these archived documents? Would any of these links have been added by this user if it were not a part of his project? For each article that was linked, there are probably many other pages on the web that may be equally or better suited as an external link. Each document requires a download and some are 20 - 80MB each to view the actual document. These very same articles are located here under a much better online viewing format California Explores the Ocean. Perhaps a different approach would have been to add a new article (California Explores the Ocean) under WP with a link to this page rather than adding all 178 archived documents under different WP articles. There appears to be a COI here and adding 100 links in a day is spam. IMHO. Calltech 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I disagree that this was spamming.

Secondly, the existence of "other pages on the web that may be equally or better suited as an external link" is irrelevant because no one has added them. We don't remove good content from articles based on the theory that "better" content might be possible. Unless and until such "better" links are added, how does Wikipedia benefit by losing these links (leaving most of the articles in question with "no or few external links")?

If some of the links are of questionable relevance, perhaps they should be removed or relocated to different articles. Indiscriminately purging all of them en masse was an ill-advised overreaction on your part, and labeling obvious good-faith contributions as "link spam" was needless newbie-biting. —David Levy 23:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see a conflict of interest here -- the user does not stand to gain from the inclusion of these links in any way. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the additions of the external links were SPAM, I think everyone needs to take a good look at User talk:plbman#Editing concerns and User talk:plbman#Reply to your request. Here was somone who was very clearly a well-intentioned newbie, but the response from the Wikipedia was, in my opinion, a clear case of not assuming good faith and biting the newbie.

Were the links spam? As I said on plbman's talk page, he was adding good references that weren't really good external links. I think that the best response for all those who have been involved is to contact the editors at WikiProject Tree of Life and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes, and then for all of us to work with plbman to integrate those references into the article itself. ^BlankVerse 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:I Wear Two Shoes

New account created today which immediately proceeded to nominate several articles on wrestlers for deletion. I am 99.9% sure this is a reincarnation of the banned user JB196, since this is the same approach as made by User:CDlatch245, another confirmed reincarnation, yesterday. I have reverted away his {{prod}} notices with the note that I will not object if someone else puts them back on, and also tagged some of his AFD nominations for deletion. Can someone who (still) has admin tools please intervene here? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The methodology taken by this vandal (if it is the same one) is alarming, insidious and highly damaging to WP. The fact that most of us (me included) know nothing (and probably don't give a stuff) about Australian wrestling only makes it more dangerous, as it catches well-intentioned editors off-guard. It certainly caught me on the Billy Blaze AfD. It's very clever, deleting all the notability from the article before Afd tagging. This needs to be stamped on, quickly please admins. --Dweller 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nick has blocked the account. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is an over-active chinese dude on IRC who alerted and helped me revert the d00d's edits and speedy the AfDs that were created. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not Chinese, damnit!—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the various admins for taking prompt action. You're the guys in the white hats and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. --Dweller 11:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Concur with Dweller. Thanks for the help. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• See Also: MusicqueenEr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Tevildo 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sighs. Whack-a-mole. Lovely. I already sent one abuse report (not through WP) for JB's previous sockpuppetry/disruption.. should we go for WP:ABUSE next? Or is that not possible because we can't confirm the underlying IP without a RfCU, and it's not for fishing..... SirFozzie 22:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

At Durova's request, I've tagged the pages, and created A LTA report on JB SirFozzie 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block on 66.37.63.162 for repeated vandalism

I'd like to request a block on 66.37.63.162 for repeated incidents of vandalism. --Poochy 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, this user has only made one edit today, so a block is not appropriate. Secondly, try WP:AIV next time. Thanks for fighting vandalism :-) --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The user has made 3 edits in the past 48 hours, all of which were pure vandalism (one adding nonsense, two modifying biographies of living people). S/he has also been blocked four times before for vandalism, and has over 100 edits, a vast majority of which are vandalism cases. I'm guessing s/he would continue if given the chance, so I think a block is necessary. You're the admin, though, so I'll leave the decision up to you. --Poochy 21:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

continued block evasion by VacuousPoet (talk · contribs) socks

199.62.0.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked a week ago for being a sock of indefinitely-blocked user VacuousPoet. He has resumed disruption to Talk:Evolution under the same IP now that the block has expired. Note that this user has been known to switch IPs regularly to evade blocks, even continuing to sign comments with "VacuousPoet" in many instances. N6 23:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Main page is hacked

Telletubbies. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Now it is really nasty.HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? Diff links please? --Cyde Weys 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:POTD image/2007-01-05 was briefly vandalized. FOUR main page templates were left unprotected for 45 minutes. Congratulations to the sysop who caused this mess. --- RockMFR 00:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The sysop didnt protect it so the vandal could put the pictures. duh 121.6.103.249 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... please stop. People make mistakes; we don't need the sardonic remarks. -- tariqabjotu 01:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed and blocked. This was the edit: [31]. He later changed the image: [32]. Go !vote for ProtectionBot. Also, if you're a Commons admin, go delete this (WARNING, GRAPHIC). I'll open a CU request asking for the entire ISP to be blocked. --Slowking Man 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am prepared right now to start running ProtectionBot as soon as it is flagged. Several of the Bots Approval Group wanted to see the code, so that is where we are right now. Also, they generally seem to feel it should have its own RFA before being given sysop rights. Dragons flight 02:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The RFA doesn't appear to be necessary. Just ask for a bureaucrat to flag it on WP:AN. Or run it on your admin account for now and run it through RFA if you must. But this is critical enough that we don't need to wait for all of this unnecessary bureaucratic process. --Cyde Weys 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, even if a 'crat won't flag it without an RfA, just run it as a "script" on your account - no-one's going to complain (or, they won't if they've got any understanding of the distruptioon which goes on). Martinp23 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur, Dragons flight. If you're certain that the script is performing as intended, just run it on your account for the time being. Addressing this issue is far more important than dotting every "i" and crossing every "t." This is a textbook application of WP:IAR. —David Levy 20:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

When calling for Commons attention, please post to the Commons AN (more likely for a commons sysop to be able to do something about it then.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The POTD templates for tomorrow will probably be forgotten again as there doesn't seem to be anyone monitoring them. --- RockMFR 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that bot should run. Can't those POTD images be protected in advance? It's not as if non-admins need to edit them anyway. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I went through the list of unprotected template sent to me by shadowbot2. I did not list Template:POTD image/2007-01-05, but listed Template:POTD protected/2007-01-05, which I checked to be sure it was protected. What happened? Why was one shown on the bot list, and another used? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the template got changed after Shadowbot2 did it stuff. The full story seems to be here: Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#New_system. Carcharoth 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

New user 69.177.205.162 deleting dated prod and other templates

New user 69.177.205.162 rapidly is deleting dated prod and other templates. See [33] -- Jreferee 01:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to check: is the proper response to the deletion of prod templates from articles by anonymous users to replace them, or list the articles for AfD? Thanks, WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 01:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In general, deletion of the prod template means that it's contested so it would go to AFD. The exception is clear cases of vandalism (page blanking, replace article text with "graffiti", etc) in which case it can be reverted. -- JLaTondre 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

However, this was a Prod2. I've reinstated the Prod2, (it's a single season in review for a High School football team) SirFozzie 01:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the article I had in mind. In this instance an anon went through a number of articles and removed prod template but did not vandalise those articles in any other way. I've nominate 2 for AfD in response, other editors have restored the prod templates. In retrospect the latter solution seems better given the pattern of behaviour which doesn't suggest real reasons for deleting the template, so maybe we can presume vandalism (though WP:AGF is at the back of my mind). WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 01:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking generically. I didn't go through the anon's edits as by the time I looked, they appeared to all be handled. However, I just looked at the one you mentioned (2006 Terrier Football). Restoring the prod2 template on that article doesn't mean much as there was never a prod template to start. It had an incomplete afd nomination instead. I deleted it as {{db-group}}. -- JLaTondre 02:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

adolescence article vandalism/trolling

I have been dealing with the article on adolesescence, namely the part on adolescent sexuality and neogitiating the removal of data of HIGHLY dubious viability and which is obviously opinionated (Lot's of the data is from a single book by leonard sax which is not easily accessible by the average person) And i have placed in more accurate and backed up Center for disease control data on adolescent rates of std transmission/pregnancy rates which have been CONSISTENTLY deleted along with the references DESPITE my asking for proof of sax's 'studies' and 'facts' to be given in an internet reference and for possible other sources on this controversial subject to be used that aren't obviously against it.

What concerns me the most is that it is FILLED with data from just ONE book by a supposed guru on adolescence who claims to have all the facts on teen sexuality and it's dangers and how while my attempts to make the article more nuetral and at least input data from both sides of the debate are overwritten...

There's the fact that some teen or parent might go to the article on adolesence and after reading a few paragraphs on the topic of teen sexuality (Which despite my best efforts is somehow constantly returned back to it's highly biased and non nuetral state by trolls) would declare it horribly dangerous and thus likely cause A LOT of worries, suppression, etc. etc. and EVEN MORE fear about the horrors of teen sex, WITHOUT even allowing for opinions to prove that STD transmission rates and pregnancies have gone down among teens in the last few years without being waaaayyy at the bottom behind the MASSES of Leonard Sax and exclusively right wing opninions, I'm requesting that the topic is locked until a consensus can be reached and if no proof of the dubious (at best) claims about teenage emotional shallowness can be brough out that someone helps me to stop this constant trolling....

The anti vandalism bot reverted my correction where i moved up the CDC data to the top and added teen sexuality based on country to the almost original super biased state...

help in resolving this matter is desperately needed....

Nateland 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User continues to remove my nomination for deletion

a non admin user continues to remove my nomination for speedy deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Socialism_and_Liberation

68.161.73.206 02:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Argh. As I explained to you four times, speedy deletion tags can be removed by anyone who did not write the article. I did not, so I can remove it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not a speedy candidate - and I am an admin. Satisfied? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 02:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Amarkov has offered to nominate the page for AfD for you. Will that not do? Also the tag was previously removed by Naconkantari who is an admin, and suggested AfD. This page clearly does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion (see WP:CSD). WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed it now as well, and I'm also an admin. Please read about the criteria for speedy deletion. You may nominate it at AFD if you like. Antandrus (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Visionary Brazilian kid

13-year-old user Will-Martins was blocked indef for creating a pool of vanity articles which included Willian Neiva (documenting his movie stardom up to 2008), and his movies Thiago and the Cousins, Jake is going to field and The Life Zac :the Series. Despite the warnings, he persistently kept creating and recreating these vanity articles and moving his user pages to the main space. More importantly, he edited valid articles such as List of Disney Channel Original Movies and Disney Channel to include his fabrications [34] [35][36][37], sometimes almost imperceptibly amid other valid entries [38](try to locate Willian Gustavo Neiva in this diff). After being blocked, he now returned under a new account Raven gnm and created Thiago and the Cousins /Jake is going to the field which was speedy deleted by Voice of All. He's also continuing to add his phony movies to List of Disney Channel Original Movies [39][40] with his IP 201.78.63.184. Since he doesn't seem to be willing to put an end to this trend, I recommend his IP to be blocked indef and account creation prevented.--Húsönd 15:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No problemos. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure about indef for an IP, let's see if a week is enough that he gets the message. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I had never recommended an IP to be blocked indef before but the circumstances here might make that the only solution, or at least an account creation block as the IP alone would be easy to monitor. Otherwise I believe that he'll be creating more accounts and damage valid articles with his sneaky vanity inclusions.--Húsönd 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Support indef block after a one week block, if it fails, as long as unblock instructions are left on the talk page, in case another user gets the IP. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that User:Rani-maris was blocked by Lucky6.9 back in December as a sock puppet. We need to get Lucky6.9 into this discussion since he seems to think this User is a sock puppet of some previous editor. Rani-maris (talk · contribs) is the original creator of the Willian Gustavo Neiva article. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Lucky is on a wiki-break, I have emailed him. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rani-maris does seem to be a sockpuppet of User:HD324. Edit pattern definitely corresponds to the same person (Willian Gustavo Neiva).--Húsönd 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh gosh, did I blow it with the wrong info. I told Zoe that I thought that the name corresponded to a Wiki brah sockpuppet, but after looking at the deleted titles, I'm certain that I blocked this account as a suspected sock of an anon vandal who was posting bogus Disney articles both here and at the Disney wiki. Back to my vacation; please e-mail me if you need anything else. - Lucky 6.9 03:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Geo.plrd.

User:Geo.plrd recently tried to create a new Esperanza, called Phoenix, discussed above, that was speedily deleted. Geo.plrd was warned at least three times to abide by the community consensus by administrators, but went to DRV anyway and demanded it be undeleted. He withdraw after he got six Keep Deleted votes. Because I voted on both of these and have been blunt with him as to why, Geo.plrd has responded by tagging every non-FA article I have written for speedy deletion. This is blatant stalking and I would appreciate it if someone would block, because this is going too far. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And I don;'t what what he meant by this, but he just recreated the aforementioned User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix with "Boo". Seems like he's taunting us all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Beginning to think they're violating WP:Point here... SirFozzie 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

He's absolutely violating WP:POINT, but I gave him a single warning. I also deleted the Phoenix page and protected it against re-creation. Unfortunately, he appears to be on a self-immolation strategy; I hope he changes his mind. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I also weighed in. I am of the opinion that another such disruption should result in a short block. -- Merope 05:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of bots to replace editor's judgement

I recently had a run-in with something called the User:AntiVandalBot. The particular issue was fixed and the bot's creator was very considerate. I have no complaint about the bot's creator. However, I'm not sure a bot is the best approach to reverting vandalism. It has too much opportunity for making a mistake, which is tantamount to accusing an innocent editor of vandalism. Just the accusation alone can hurt an editor's reputation (even though in my case I choose to edit using an IP instead of a user account.) Also, it takes the "editor" out of editing. Wikipedia is supposed to be self-correcting because editors are reviewing edits. Even though it takes more time, the Wikipedia way is for other editors to review edits. I'm also concerned that this puts the burden of proof on the wrong person. The bot doesn't ask before reverting edits. It takes a "guilty until proven innocent" approach. Even though an editor can "appeal" a revert by using the bot's talk page, editors shouldn't have to defend their good faith edits in such a manner. It should be up to the editor making the revert to do so only when edits are clearly vandalism. Perhaps a method of automatically flagging pages for review by other editors would be a kinder, gentler approach instead of automatic reverts. A review by a real editor prior to making a revert would improve accuracy and fairness. Bot's are good for making tedious changes in mass, but using bots to replace an editor's judgement is a different matter. In the long run, accuracy and fairness are more important than the time saved by using a bot. 24.214.57.91 01:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous nonsense. Many established editors have been mistakenly reverted before. A bot is the most efficient way we can track all vandalism, otherwsie we might have it languising in a minor article for weeks or months. – Chacor 01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The bot rarely makes mistakes in my experience of recent changes patrol. An "accusation" from a bot counts for nothing. Any accusation of vandalism will be followed up by a real life human who will easily see if the bot was wrong. I think the bot does far more good than harm. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That lovely and gorgeous bot has well over 100,000 edits, reverting nonsense, vandalism, crud, and a torrent of obscenities and filth all of which would have to have wasted the time of a human being, had it never been created. It's one of the best things to appear on Wikipedia in 2006. If it makes a mistake, report it so the bot can be improved. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

On balance, this bot does an excellent job of dealing with vandalism issues and reverts far more bad than good edits. The amount of time human editors would need to revert all the bad edits is very high, and before they got to them, a lot of vandalism, sometimes pretty gross vandalism, would remain on pages for a long time.

I don't think the user's comments should be characterized as "ridiculous nonsense", however. The user has legitimate points as to some negative aspects of this bot. It's just that they are, in the judgment of most of us, outweighed by the positive aspects. I also urge the user to post about any specific mistakes made by the bot at User talk:AntiVandalBot, as that allows the people who maintain the bot to know what types of false positives are occurring and consider adjusting the coding to reduce any errors going forward. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• User:AntiVandalBot/FAQ was designed to allay most of the concerns you have raised here. When I posed those questions, I tried to do it from the perspective of a new user quite unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. If you have suggestions on how to improve the FAQ or the other interactions with the bot from the warning recipient's perspective, please make them :). NoSeptember 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In a lot of time on RCP I have seen AVBot revert huge numbers of page blankings and replacements of text with garbage. I have also seen it revert one legitimate edit, where an author had removed a Prod and also significantly edited the article, removing about half the content. I restored the edit and left the editor a note with an explanation (also warning him that the article would likely go to AFD, where it is now). In my opinion, the very rare mistake is easily tolerable based on the huge amount of vandalism reverts that get handled by this very valuable tool. Fan-1967 02:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

While I've had run-ins with this bot, I don't think it's done more harm then good. 68.39.174.238 04:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that this bot does a lot of good. Unfortunately, when you're on the receiving end of a mistake, it doesn't look that way. I was trying to politely suggest a possible improvement for Wikipedia. Sorry this was perceived as "ridiculous nonsense". 24.214.57.91 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you feel bitten; I trust that was not Chacor's intention. I appreciate your comments, but I also feel that the templates left by AntiVandalBot are worded carefully enough to make it clear that it could be a mistake, and if so, here's how to fix it. Do you have any further suggestions about how to make this any clearer in the talkspace messages (or perhaps edit summaries)? —bbatsell ¿? 06:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:72.178.235.28

User is removing official warning templates, block notices, and denied unblock notices. User is replacing denied unblock requests with new unblock requests. Pretty clear case for extending the block and locking the userpage. Vandalism-only account, according to the contribution history.--Rosicrucian 03:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Threat made at EVP

[41] User:Tom Butler has made a very bizarre threat at Talk: Electronic voice phenomenon regarding Wikipedia in general. I don't know if it rises to the level of a legal threat, but he was very clear that it was a threat. Can an administrator look at this? --ScienceApologist 03:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The 2nd from the last paragraph seems to be saying "Don't annoy me or I'll tell all my friends this site sux!". Don't think that's a legal threat, but it's definately lame and disruptive. 68.39.174.238 04:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For context: It was in response to a perceived COI blocking threat from SA. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Tom's "telling all his friends" - http://etheric-studies.aaevp.com/articles/articles_wikipedia.htm --- LuckyLouie

Vandalism in progress at Wii Play

There are multiple IP addresses vandalizing Wii Play from the 71.83.53.XXX range and the 71.83.60.XXX range. Could someone please semi the article? I'd request it at the proper page, but its in progress right now. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That was fast. Thanks to Naconkantari for semi-protecting it. Cheers! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Several hundred links to the Christian Encyclopedia added

It looks like User:JASpencer has gone through and added several hundred links to the equivalent pages in the Christian Encyclopedia History (about 1 every minute all day). That doesn't seem right to me. The Wikipedia doesn't include a link to the corresponding page in Britannica either. Can someone automatically revert them all? It would be annoying to go through and have to do it by hand. I'm not sure where to "report" this, so I'm doing it here. Jeff Carr 03:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for what it's worth, I ran across it on the Jean-François Champollion page. You can see it creates a template at the bottom. Should I just remove the template for now until this is resolved? Jeff Carr 03:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process of rolling back all the links as the template is supposed to be placed on the talk pages, not the article. Naconkantari 03:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The template in question has been nominated for deletion at this TfD. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow -- you guys are really on the ball. Thanks, a fellow volunteer, Jeff Carr 04:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User adding original research

Can an admin please look into the conduct of 01001 (talk • contribs)? He has been edit-warring to introduce unsourced original research to the human height article (sample). A number of editors have attempted to explain to him why his edits to this and other articles are problematic, and he has been directed to the relevant policies on numerous occasions:

• User talk:01001
• Talk:Hair#It is pretty obvious that people have lost their hair because of clothes.
• Talk:Baldness#This article is full of crap
• Talk:Human height#Health & Height
• Talk:Human height#Physics section added

He has indicated that he has read the relevant policies (e.g., [42], [43]); however, the problem edits persist and he appears either unable to understand or unwilling to abide by WP:V and WP:RS. --Muchness 05:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If he continues, he should be blocked until he gets it. Chick Bowen 05:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Numerous articles blanked, or large portion of article content removed

Editor CyberAnth recently went through a wide variety of articles, primarily sex related articles removing content. Also many articles were nominated for deletion. User has expressed a desire to eliminate many articles not deemed desirable by claiming that the articles did not have valid references, or that references did not meet appropriate standards. These actions are disruptive, and I believe an intentional attempt to disrupt editing and improving of these articles. Perhaps actions were veiled type of censorship, perhaps not. Please see Special:Contributions/CyberAnth for details.

Naturally, the editor claimes that a given article should be deleted, or removes any content perceived as unsavory, and not cited. Needless to say if every article on wikipedia that did not have citations for each and every statement in it were deleted, it would create utter chaos. Atom 04:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear that the editor is engaged in heavy wiki-lawyering to target a selected set of articles. How to address it is a good question. Fan-1967 04:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely see disruption of Wikipedia to make a point here, in some sort of veiled attempt to wipe Wikipedia clean of questionable content. I would recommend a temp block to facilitate clean-up of all of the bad faith AFDs.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend experience? It seems pretty reasonable to have a discussion about deleting this "article", which is basically an unsourced dictdef. Jkelly 04:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't usually be deleted just because they're uncited. If they're reasonably accurate, they should be cited where possible, and unverifiable information removed. Superm401 - Talk 06:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Most readers would have no idea if Girlfriend experience is "reasonably accurate". Most will have never heard of the term! Shall we take the editor-author's word for it, or require notability and verifiability be established? If I had removed the long-in-place un-sourced material in that page, the only thing left would have been the slang term's entry in the The Double-Tongued Word Wrester Dictionary.[44]. Thus, since only a slang dicdef from a dubious source was in the article, and for the reasons I cited on its AfD page, particularly WP:WINAD, I brought it to AfD. CyberAnth 06:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If a reasonable person's never even heard of the term, citation is not the issue. The topic is probably either non-notable or a hoax. Both of these are grounds for deletion, and only citation can prove them invalid. However, clearly real (and probably notable) topics like Martin Perreault should not be deleted solely because they are uncited. Superm401 - Talk 08:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, quite a few of his AfDs have succeeded so far, so I'm not sure a block is appropriate. I don't agree with the mass AfD noms, and the reason behind the noms could be a religious thing, but if they correctly apply policy and the articles should be deleted, I don't really know what we can or should do. For the record, I chimed in on a few of them, with different votes. The one I voted keep got deleted (which appeared to me to be against consensus), but such is life. —bbatsell ¿? 04:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There must be precedent for something like this. Blanking tons of articles to prove a point, whether or not the information is cited, is incredibly disruptive to the project. --- RockMFR 04:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I blanked no article. I removed content from some that was unsourced and probably OR per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence, all after either the information had been in the article for a long period, tags were placed, or the concern was raised on the talk pages. If you dislike this, please consider the following from WP:V: Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." CyberAnth 06:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote above is not from WP:V it is from WP:BLP and expressly deals with controversial material about living persons. It does not apply to CyberAnth's conduct in this matter. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to have a look again at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. It is right there. Moreover, a clear and plain reading indicates the policy "is true of all information", as well as and particularly BOLPs. If you dislike that I removed info from a page you were interested in, if that is the case, I suggest that all the information is there in its history and can be restored without worry once it is referenced to reliable sources. CyberAnth 06:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see it. It is there just not as clearly. I apologise. I would note from the link to the original comment though that the statement is made in the context of a discussion about biographical information and concludes with, "This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude and frustration"[45]. I still think you are taking the comment well beyond its originial context and purpose. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. However, I do not think you are at all reading [46] accurately. Let's look at the comment:

I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers. (This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude and frustration.)

Clearly, Jimbo is qualifying only his third paragraph, "I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers," as "a statement of attitude and frustration". Otherwise, he would have not used "this" but "the above" or "this all", and not broken paragraphs. The second paragraph is not modified as "a statement of attitude and frustration". Of course, that is why the second paragraph has become part of policy but the third has not.

CyberAnth 07:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The above comment does parse the truth. WJBscribe raises a valid concern, albeit with flawed evidence. CyberAnth's quote refers to the case of information about living people." These noms do not relate to biographies of living persons. Therefore, the text cited is inapplicable, but is being presented as though it were.--Ssbohio 07:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You might too want to have a look again at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. It states, "Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people." It is very clearly dealing with non-BOLP articles under a standard of "too long", and BOLP under a standard of immediately remove it on site as soon as it is added in every instance. CyberAnth 07:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And likewise, you may want to consider deletion policy as it relates to articles insufficiently verifiable. For the problem of article lacks source citations, the policy calls for you to look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article, ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates, and, if those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted. That's good advice in that it promotes improving articles rather than simply deleting them. What's more it's an official policy on the English Wikipedia. --Ssbohio 07:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is to say I did not try to find sources? And most I nominated had been already been tagged at some point. Also, we have two competing policies here, the one you posted and the one I did at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. Feel free to give weight to the one you deem most important, as will I. If had gone through the category for bands, internet sites, or companies and started a string of AfDs on them, would you still be objecting?CyberAnth 07:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not stating that you didn't try to find sources, I didn't see where you had found sources, or where you had asked other editors. Please let me know what examples of source-finding that I missed. As far as the competing policies, please understand that the policy I am citing is the deletion policy, and would, per force, rule in questions of deletion. --Ssbohio 07:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no bad faith nominations here nor any Abuse of the deletion process. If you find User:CyberAnth/AfD/Original Research of Wanker and non Verfiability of claims which I wrote for an AfD for Wanker to be a mere whine, I am sorry but I consider it part of a good faith effort to cleanup Wikipedia of material that violates policies. Each and every nomination I have made has been based solidly in Wikipedia policies as best as I understand them, not some "preference". And yes, I am going to continue to busy myself to make Wikipedia better by helping to enforce adherence to its policies. I suggest if you dislike my AfD nominations, please see Help! my article got nominated for deletion: How to save the article. I would be happy to withdraw nominations if concerns that brought the AfD are remedied. Cheers! CyberAnth 06:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, CyberAnth's choice of targets raises concern that the nominations are an effort to remove objectionable subject matter from the project. Further, the nominations made in the AfDs for bean queen and rice queen consist only of lists of policies without specification as to how they are violated. In my analysis, each of the policyvios claimed either doesn't have a discernible rational basis or the policy itself doesn't call for deletion. We're trying to write an encyclopedia, and I'm convinced that improving the content will be more beneficial than removing content based on qualitative or moral objections. --Ssbohio 07:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the policies I listed and determine it yourself. Most AfDs only list policies. If you have a question, ask on the AfD page. I always explain in more detail if asked. Also, go through the list for Category:Sexual_slang and have a look at all of the ones I did not touch because they met WP policies. If I had just a vendetta against sex, which I do not (believe me, I enjoy sex a whole lot), then I would have listed all of them or done so indiscriminately. BTW, if had gone through the category for bands, internet sites, or companies and started a string of AfDs on them, would you still be objecting? Probably not! But don't worry. They are next. CyberAnth 07:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's good advice. Luckily, I already did that. That's how I reached the conclusion about the noms that I mentioned above. Regardless, it still takes more than a list of policy links to state a rationale for deletion. Stating in what way policy is violated is part of laying out a rationale to delete. As to your next point, whenever the focus of a concerted effort toward deletion is a controversial subject area prone to being censored, it raises the question of motivation. If you were doing the same to articles on bands, it wouldn't raise the same issues because there aren't many attempts to censor writing about bands. Perhaps it's best handled directly: why do you tend to choose articles related to human sexuality for your content deletions and AfDs? --Ssbohio 07:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This user has taken sourcing to an unfortunate extreme. We should not be proposing for deletion all articles that do not have sources. That would eliminate most stubs completely.

Another example of an sexually-related article targeted in this manner today was Mile High club. This is a short, reasonably well-written article which contains 5 distinct in-line sources. Very few short articles have this many in-line sources.

We should not be removing from articles every unsourced statement. That would wipe out much valuable content.

For instance - Ahmose I - today's Featured Article contains several sentences with no source:

"There was no distinct break in the line of the royal family between the 17th and 18th dynasties."

"The Thera eruption in the Aegean has been implicated by some scholars as the source of this damage, but similar claims are common in the propaganda of other pharaohs, to show them overcoming the powers of darkness. Due to the lack of evidence, no definitive conclusion can be reached."

"Although the pyramid interior has not been explored since 1902, work in 2006 uncovered portions of a massive mudbrick construction ramp built against its face."

etc.

CyberAnth needs to be warned against this kind of behavior and the policy statement should be immediately clarified to remove any implication that all unsourced sentences are to be removed on sight. That is surely not our intent. Johntex\^talk 07:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Mile High club. I left it alone (for AfD) because, as you said, it is "a short, reasonably well-written article which contains 5 distinct in-line sources" but lots was uncited for a LONG PERIOD. I will revisit it later, however.

If any "clarification" is offered, clarify them in the policies where I can read them along with everyone else. That is where clarifications are proposed and consensus reached over them. CyberAnth 07:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover:

1. "There was no distinct break in the line of the royal family between the 17th and 18th dynasties" is sourced. Look again.

2. The portion beginning "The Thera eruption in the Aegean has been implicated by some scholars..." is indeed unreferenced. It also contains Weasel Words. Are you arguing that sloppiness should be allowed in even featured articles? Has it ever concerned you that most high school teachers and college instructors (I am one of the latter), and even many elementary schools by policy (!) do not allow WP to be cited?

3. "Although the pyramid interior has not been explored since 1902..." - it is sourced. Look again.

CyberAnth 08:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhm... this qualifies as "[leaving] it alone"? —bbatsell ¿? 07:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: The above comment by CyberAnth was edited after my comment. —bbatsell ¿? 08:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth, one of the things to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Policy is not meant to address every possible permutation of user behavior. The focus here is a consensus-based effort to build an encyclopedia. Policy will never be all-inclusive. That's why we have fora like this so we can iron out issues not fully addressed by policy. --Ssbohio 08:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your second number there: Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Tertiary sources should never be allowed to be cited in an academic environment. They can be used as background, and they can be used to locate qualified primary and secondary sources, but they should never be cited. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 08:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is quite a surprising (and somewhat disturbing) read. Despite the long touted value of Being bold, it seems that when an editor actually takes that directive they are quickly jumped on and their good faith questioned. I have been watching and conversing with CyberAnth on Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles and while I don't agree with the level of zeal that he has for academic standards, I nonetheless understand and appreciate his respect for Wikipedia's policies. The only motivation I see in his contribution is an ardent desire to see the project flourish and improve by paying more attention to such fundamental policies as WP:V and WP:NOR. While his methods maybe zealous they are not overly disuptive to the extent of WP:POINT. I think this thread highlights a drastic need for the community to seriously evaluate its commitment to WP:V and what kind of credibility or reputation this project desires to acheive. Agne 07:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the concern expressed here is borne out of history being the supreme arbiter. In massive nominations within a narrow subset of articles such as this in the past, it has, at certain times, been an instance of POV warring rather than good-faith nominations with the project's interests at heart. Note that I am not saying that is the case here, I am simply presenting to you that that is a possible cause for increased attention and discussion. Neither caution nor discussion should ever be considered "bad things", and if they ever are, then we've lost our way. Caution is not the antithesis of being bold. I have commented above that since some to most of the articles inevitably do not meet our policies or guidelines, I personally don't see any of this as being actionable, nor should it be. —bbatsell ¿? 08:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood and I will note that there is stark contrast in the sentiment that you have expressed here and the sentiment that a few other editors have espoused in questioning CA's good faith. The fact that this matter was taking to AN/I is troublesome. It is quite apparent in looking at CA's contribution that he is an established editor with a history of constructive contribution to the project. It would have been more prudent for this issue to be approached on his talk page (as a few editors did) rather then bringing it immediately here for admin intervention. Agne 08:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To further clarify my comments and position: I have been talking specifically about the AfD nominations. Edits such as this one do concern me; that edit made the article completely unintelligible. If there really is a large issue with sourcing, then stub it and work to expand it (and ask others to help you if you can). I contend that in articles other than biographies of living persons, lack of sourcing is not so urgent that it requires wholesale deletions without attempts to improve the text. The gist of what I'm saying is this: if something is unsourced, {{sofixit}}. If you don't have the time to fix it, hold of on gutting the article until you have the time to fix it. If edits such as the one above have happened multiple times in this case then it might need to be addressed. —bbatsell ¿? 08:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• CyberAnth - you are wrong about those sentences from the Featured Article. Not a single one of those sentences has a footnote immediately at the end of the sentence.

My point is that even our Featured Articles are not perfect, and that you would cause more harm than good to go through any article, whether it be a stub or a featured article, with the intent to remove every single sentence that does not have an in-line reference.

I am not saying that you are acting in bad faith, I am only saying that you are acting wrongly, and dangerously so.

Furthermore, you have not explained how this edit you made can be reconcilled with your claim that you looked at Mile High Club and left it alone. You seem to be making these changes so fast and furious that you don't even remember your own edits.

You need to slow down, take a deep breath, and stop trying to remove everything that doesn't fit your definiton of perfection. Johntex\^talk 08:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

minor quibble A well reference and well cited article does not need to have a footnote at the end of every sentence. It doesn't take much editorial skill to string together verifiable information for an entire paragraph and need only a single footnote at the end of that paragraph.Agne 08:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • They are cited at the end of the paragraph in which they appear and an evaluation of the source indicates the citation is for the entire paragraph. I learned in College Writing 101 that this is the normative style for citations. You only change cites when the source changes. Or are you proposing that each sentence in Wikipedia have a repeating same-source citation? CyberAnth 08:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, I am saying that even featured articles are not perfect. And you still are ignoring my question about why you claimed to have not editted Mile High Club, when you most certainly did so. Johntex\^talk 08:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Look at my comment above again. I was still editing it. Sorry for the confusion of hitting save and not preview. CyberAnth 08:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, thank you for the explanation - but even removal of the content was too drastic. You should have simply flagged the article with one of the many templates we have for that purpose, such as {{tl:unsourced}} and {{tl:fact}}. Johntex\^talk 08:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Here is another Featured Article chosen at random: Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia. I count nine whole paragrphs with no footnotes. Beyond those 9, there are additional paragraphs where the final sentence is not footnoted. Again, I have no question your motives are noble, but your actions are extreme and you need to stop. Johntex\^talk 08:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Your point about FAs is a straw man. None of my AfDs were over lack of "perfection" or lack of FA-quality, were they? CyberAnth 08:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
            • That WP would allow a featured article with {{citation needed}} is utterly pathetic. Again, has it never concerned you greatly that most high school teachers and nearly all college instructors and--mygod--many elementary schools (!) by written policy do not allow their students to use WP as a source? If not that, and if I may put it so bluntly, then what the fuck kind of game are we playing here? CyberAnth 08:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
              • We're writing an encyclopedia. I have commented on that straw man argument here. —bbatsell ¿? 09:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I will thank you to take a deep breath and watch your tone. There is no need for profanity here. There is no need for condescending remarks such as "...has it never concerned you..." We are all working to improve the encyclopedia. You need to avoid mistakening differences of opinions with differences of goals. Johntex\^talk 09:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
                • I do not mean to offend with profanity or tone, only to make my point strongly. Let me put it another way: if we have all been trying to write an encyclopedia that has gained a reputation such that most high school teachers and nearly all college instructors and--mygod--many elementary schools (!) by written policy do not allow their students to use as a source, then what kind of product is it that we have actually been producing? CyberAnth 09:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as found by the journal Nature and by other third parties, we are approximately as accurate as the E.B. As Bbatsell pointed out already, we are a tertiary source and as a rule, teriary sources are really not the best sources to cite. Instead, one should use the tertiary source to get an overview and then use it to locate the better sources to cite.

I share your interest in improving the referencing of our articles, I assure you. I've probably added 50 or more sources to Wikipedia today. Some of the articles I'm working on, such as 2006 Texas Longhorn football team, have over 100 in-line references. In fact, I belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check which has the goal of multiple in-line sources for each factual statement in Wikipedia. We'll get there someday. You might consider joining.

Until we get there though, removing every unsourced statement is not the way to go. As I have demonstrated, even our featured articles would fall apart if held to that test. For you to apply such a standard to a set of articles is simply wrong.

It's not all your fault. The policy is badly worded. I haven't checked the history to see who or when, but someone took Jimbo's mailing-list comment far too seriously. We should nto be making policy based upon something Jimbo once said on the mailing list. People who are inclined to dwell on every word Jimbo has ever spoken would do well to remember another Jimbo quote:

...as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think."[47]

Johntex\^talk 09:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have now proposed new wording to make clear that adding sources and working towards a high standdard are important, but that wholesale deletion of content is not the answer. Please reveiw and comment. Johntex\^talk 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in a large-scale dispute, but I spend a lot of time on AFD, and the number of these pre-formed nominations caught my eye. A few links later, I found myself here. I can only conclude that there were good intentions behind this. I know that I'm frustrated with the limited citations some articles possess as well. But I have to agree with some of the commenters above me: This is not the way to do it.

I know linking to specific diffs is the norm here, but the general degredation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erotic spanking from discussion to accusations and arguments should be read in full. "If you have the book, place the page numbers and reference them to specific portions of the text. That way I can (and will) verify (or falsify) it." I don't know, maybe I'm wrong ... but I know that I would never try to work out differences on sourcing or establish consensus this way.

But, speaking of diffs, the gutting of articles is extreme, including even removal of disambiguation headers (presumably because they didn't have an inline citation?). See [48], [49], [50], and particularly [51] which gutted an article so severely as to remove any context whatsoever. Had the result been posted as a new article, I would probably have tagged it as suitable for speedy deletion.

I'm also somewhat disturbed by this exchange (and part of the one above it). Between that and these comments, I suspect this is a case of an editor attempting to enforce his vision of what Wikipedia "should be" (but isn't!) to satisfy some third-party concerns. Serpent's Choice 11:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see below for continuation of this general topic. Johntex\^talk 11:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Angry Bahraini/Iraqi dinar vandal

He's back again, this time from 89.148.40.211 and he's vandalizing the same articles. He hasn't started following me around and reverting me yet (or Ashmoo). Could we have another block, please? We'll see if that does it. The last spate of abuse came from many different IPs and we had to semi-protect a number of articles to stop it. Zora 12:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians born in 1999

Category:Wikipedians born in 1999 is currently populated by one user. Would it be appropriate to depopulate this? (for obvious reasons) --- RockMFR 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we depop deleted cats... so I don't see why not. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the other deleted categoriues are re-filling, BTW. I'm more than a little concerned that we have Wikipedians who) basically announce on their user page things like (this is an actual example) "I'm a 10 year-old girl, these are my interests, and this is the part of Canada I live in". Grutness...wha? 13:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Eyrebiobot - bot?

This account was just created and started uploading images (probably promotional ones) - Special:Contributions/Eyrebiobot. Name suggest it's a bot, so I blocked indef and directed the user to WP:BRFA. Any second opinions? Миша13 12:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be blocked for WP:U, anyways. However, on the point about being a bot, I don't think so - two mins between uploads[52], no "bot-like" repetition (ie. if they were all tagging with the exact same image upload description etc. it would be more likely) - on that note, the two images should be speedied as no image description, let alone a FU rationale, is included - although the account hasn't done anything except upload images since it was registered (contribs). Not much to go on, but it's hard to piece together that it is a bot, but then again it's hard to prove it isn't. By the way, the user requested {{unblock-auto}}... Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that this account is uploading the same images strikes me as bizarre... I still don't know, given the images are slightly different (171/158kb). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Images were obvious spam. Gone now. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians born in 1999

Category:Wikipedians born in 1999 is currently populated by one user. Would it be appropriate to depopulate this? (for obvious reasons) --- RockMFR 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we depop deleted cats... so I don't see why not. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the other deleted categoriues are re-filling, BTW. I'm more than a little concerned that we have Wikipedians who) basically announce on their user page things like (this is an actual example) "I'm a 10 year-old girl, these are my interests, and this is the part of Canada I live in". Grutness...wha? 13:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet attempting to disrupt AfD

See contribs here [53]. No idea who any possible master is, but its rare that a new user would jump right into project maintenance and focus solely on AfD (yes I've read AGF, but that doesn't mean you have to be blind). Here he tries to list a vote count [54] and I point out that Afd is a discussion not a vote and that listing vote counts is not appropriate. In response he does it again [55]. Would appreciate some outside eyes.--Crossmr 05:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This comment pretty much says it all [56].--Crossmr 05:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "vote summaries" he's created and asked him to stop doing that. Other than that, I don't see anything much wrong here. Its possible for new accounts to dive right into AfDs. he may be a long time IP contributor who has just signed up for an account (this happens quite frequently). Unless there is more evidence of sockpuppetry I'd let this drop. Thanks, Gwernol 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate the input.--Crossmr 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a bunch more active in that AfD that are suspicious. I've noticed Brendan Alcorn (talk · contribs) and Alan Shatte (talk · contribs) look like long-lost twins. Paul D. Meehan (talk · contribs) is another possibility, although he !voted delete in that one. I see a heavy influx of Wikicode-savvy editors who only contribute to AfDs/DRVs. ~ trialsanderrors 05:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Wikicode-savvy editor who only really contributes to AfDs/DRVs. >.<

Anyway, while that is true, I'm not sure why it's a problem. Sockpuppetry isn't against the rules unless you're using it to make false illusions of support or the like. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what might be happening here. ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering their only contributions seem to be to a certain few AfDs, and all contributing to the same ones, I think that is an issue here. A quick look shows them all contributing to these AfDs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GuildCafe (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PGNx Media (3rd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xbox_Handheld (3 of the 4)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime Fight (3 of the 4)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chronicles of Spellborn (3 of the 4, for each of the last 3 brendan was the one who didn't contribute)

Also a couple of them happened to contribute to DRV on PGN on their first day here as well. thats a lot of coincidences--Crossmr 06:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking through Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 30, I think I have a candidate for puppetmaster. ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail. I just made that same conclusion.--Crossmr 06:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. ~ trialsanderrors 06:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You're the more experienced one here. Should we bother with a RFCU or is this an "obvious" one?--Crossmr 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What's your feeling on this involved user Thinkjose (talk · contribs) seems our suspected master picked up where this person left off with matching edit dates in october.--Crossmr 06:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So what it appears we have here is:

1. Paul D. Meehan (talk · contribs)
2. Alan Shatte (talk · contribs)
3. Brendan Alcorn (talk · contribs)
4. Joel_Jimenez (talk · contribs)
5. Jessica_Anne_Stevens (talk · contribs)
6. Gisele_Hsieh (talk · contribs)
7. Brad Guzman (talk · contribs)
8. Thinkjose (talk · contribs)
9. Infomanager (talk · contribs) master. Not first, but most edits.

1-7 should be obvious. I'm establishing 8 based on the contrib history compared to infomanager's and the fact that its a single purpose account for the article that seems to be the focus of all this.--Crossmr 07:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to make the following notes: given the similarities in contribution, 1-7 seem like reasonable assumptions. However, I ask that my IP is checked so that I can be cleared of this. Second, only two of them contributed to the deletion review. The strength of the argument came from others. They also contributed to the other deletion reviews for Dec 30 to Jan 1. Third, yes they all contributed to my article's AfD but they all also contributed to every other gaming AfD. It would make the most sense to simply strike their votes and not point fingers. Infomanager 07:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

a check user isn't a get out of jail free card. It just means there is no conclusive proof its coming from the same computer. The instructions for beating it are right here on wikipedia. They all contributed to a variety of other AfDs, but all exhibited the same behaviour which you yourself have done, namely bluelinking your userpage immediately on account creation, and not all of them have participated in all the same AfDs, except for the pgnx one. They've all participated in that. As well thinkjose's contribution history seems to fit rather nicely around your own, he stops editing, you start, then you both happen to edit again in october, then nothing again until this whole deal with PGN flares up again, and he also commented on the drv, which makes 3.--Crossmr 07:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? All six of them may not share one AfD besides PGNx Media, but this is coincidence given that a number of them seem to have gone to everyone videogames AfD and voted, before moving on to the next one on the list! This looks really bad, I admit, but it isn't without explanation.

I would not have sacrificied what I have worked on for months-- especially when the results would be identical otherwise! Infomanager 07:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite serious. It wouldn't be the first time wikipedia has dealt with complex sock puppets or sock puppets used to try and influence an AfD or two. It also wouldn't be the first time someone tried to use their edit history to try and introduce doubt into it either. Name a strategy to cover it up and I'm sure you could find a hundred people here who've seen it. One thing with sockpuppets is there is always a master, and when it comes to AfDs, the master always has something to gain. Usually in removing or keeping a specific article. They've all focused on one article and given varying opinions on other articles, and there are two users who seem to be rather tied into that one article and who's edit histories seem to go rather nicely together. Where I come from thats far too coincidental.--Crossmr 07:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat 8: 5 contributed, all delete Black: 5 contributed, all delete Spellborn: 6 contributed, 5 delete, 1 keep Masamune: 3 contributed, all "keep or merge" xbox handheld: 5 contributed: 3 delete,2 keep anime fight: 4 contributed, 4 delete jumpstart: 4 contributed, all keep There is an obvious pattern here. But they contributed to ALL recent videogame deletions. Because two happened to also contribute to the deletion review is a mere coincidence. Infomanager 08:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The side articles are mostly immaterial here. Account creation time, general editing habits, and account creation habits (which mimic your own and thinkjose) combined with their one common attention show the true purpose of them. Most sock puppets who are made have some sort of weak attempt at masking their purpose by editing a few other articles, but become rather easy to spot when you find the motivation.--Crossmr 08:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not agree that they are immaterial. You have not accounted for the fact that some accounts were created before the deletion review ended and did not participate. You are not accounting for the fact that the sockpuppets voted one after the other in multiple AfDs. By saying, "I have motivation, now let me find the evidence" (you claim this when you say it is easy to spot once you have the motivation") you fall victim to Experimenter's bias. Infomanager 08:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to account for that. As I've stated before, its common for someone using sockpuppets to try and introduce inconsistencies in their edit history to throw people off. The point of using them is often to try and get away with it. And if someone were responsible for creating them they'd know exactly the points to try and raise to try and throw the heat off themselves. Step 1 - use a proxy server, then insist on an IP check the moment its questioned. Step 2 - introduce inconsistencies in the edit history then question them. We'll see what step 3 and 4 are. The problem is, regardless of the little inconsistencies in the side articles they participated in, they all have a common interest, and that draws the picture for us.--Crossmr 08:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You are suffering from Experimenter's bias. If an administrator can assume good faith, you can too. Please move on. Infomanager 09:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not. Nor have you said anything that would explain it otherwise. You claimed there was an explanation for it all yet I haven't seen it. Instead you gave a few of the comments they made on some side articles, but didn't explain why the PGNx article is the only article they all commented on, not the DRV, but the AfD. We already know that sockpuppet use has a purpose. Disruption of some process, whether its disruption through vandalism or attempts to coerce consensus to your "side" there is always a purpose. Since we know then that the sock puppets must have a purpose, what is the one purpose all the puppets were used for? You yourself admitted that 1-7 were quite obvious, so then what is the explanation? If its not to try and get the PGNx article kept, what is it? We know that vandalism obviously wasn't the purpose here. None of the puppets did that.--Crossmr 09:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I truly wish I knew the answers to your questions. This is my last comment to you. You are a persistent fellow. Good luck with getting the Guildcafe article deleted. Infomanager 09:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the discussions with {{AfdAnons}} for now. I'll see what else needs to be done tomorrow. I can think of a couple other potential beneficiaries, but the circumstantial evidence looks strong enough to bring this up here without straying outside WP:AGF. ~ trialsanderrors 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

JumpStart (4 keep), Mortal Kombat: 8 and Second Objectives for Black (5 delete). These three however (as well as my PGNx article) were already all keeps or all deletes. Guildcafe article has significant back and forth not found in others. But again, because of the narrowness of their activity, I can't be sure which article(s) were the ones being targeted. Infomanager 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Eyrebiobot - bot?

This account was just created and started uploading images (probably promotional ones) - Special:Contributions/Eyrebiobot. Name suggest it's a bot, so I blocked indef and directed the user to WP:BRFA. Any second opinions? Миша13 12:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be blocked for WP:U, anyways. However, on the point about being a bot, I don't think so - two mins between uploads[57], no "bot-like" repetition (ie. if they were all tagging with the exact same image upload description etc. it would be more likely) - on that note, the two images should be speedied as no image description, let alone a FU rationale, is included - although the account hasn't done anything except upload images since it was registered (contribs). Not much to go on, but it's hard to piece together that it is a bot, but then again it's hard to prove it isn't. By the way, the user requested {{unblock-auto}}... Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that this account is uploading the same images strikes me as bizarre... I still don't know, given the images are slightly different (171/158kb). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Images were obvious spam. Gone now. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)