Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive235

I Can

request for removal of historical inaccuracies section and protection of article "I Can (Nas Song)"

Could you provide some diffs? Or consider {{sofixit}}. John Reaves (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

In light of the recent protection to WP:NPA and the edit war going on, I have added {{disputedtag}} to the section Linking to attack sites. To me this tag seems rather obvious from the discussion; this section is heavily disputed. --Chris (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that section is disputed, but there's no need to bring this here... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you all know since this seems to be a hot topic and I'm going off-wiki for the night. --Chris (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jayjg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States military aid to Israel

• DRV discussion now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 26. -- ChrisO 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request that another administrator review Jayjg's behaviour in this matter.

Jayjg undid the actions of another administrator here, and imposed his own decision on the afd result. His actual decision may have been technically correct. However, I don't believe Jayjg should have been the person to close this afd, given his editing history on articles relating to Israel. CJCurrie 05:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you "merge" when the article is deleted, which would be a violation of the GFDL? hbdragon88 05:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would be. --Iamunknown 05:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Even as such submission relative to the GFDL is often made, it's not, IMHO, as a matter of law, quite right. One may, of course, effect a page history merge, such that the revision history of the antecedent page may be safely deleted, but, as I recapitulated here, such merge is disfavored as exorbitantly time-consuming and generally unnecessary. The GFDL, though, does not require that a substantive revision history be kept; that is, a revision history that enumerates only those who are principal contributors but does not offer individual diffs to the contributions of each suffices (were the latter substantive history required for GFDL compliance, the transwiki of content from Wikipedia to, say, Wikibooks would be a bit unwieldy [or perhaps technically impossible]). It is only, AFAIK, for policy reasons—largely good ones, IMHO—that we proscribe merge-and-delete closures. (This comment is, of course, entirely irrelevant to the instant situation or, really, to anything we do here, but I think it necessary to point out that (I believe) that we are not compelled to do things as we do.) Joe 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just posed a question for Jayjg at Doc's page, WjBscribe at Jayjg's page, maybe we should wait for further comments until we hear from em? --Iamunknown 05:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'd just noticed this myself and asked Jayjg to comment on it. It does seem very irregular. Better let him know that the matter has been raised here as well. WjBscribe 05:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg has a long history of activism here with respect to Israeli issues. Fred Bauder 05:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• If the action was technically correct, a "tsk" is called for. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Upon whom? --Iamunknown 06:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well Jayjg's close cannot be correct because it goes against GDFL. We can't merge deleted content... WjBscribe 06:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I don't think Jayjg or Doc's close was correct, I don't see any consensus there on anything. Still, Doc closed it as he did, and isn't that what DRV's for, rather than to reverse the close unilaterally while calling it "nonsense"? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be taken to DRV, but as the delete/merge issue, the easy way to do handle that is to have it as a redirect with the edits in the history and then merge anything over. Still, this looks like it should go to DRV for now. I do have trouble seeing Doc's close given what the AfD looks like. JoshuaZ 06:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to be able to suggest that we wait to hear from both of them, but if we must I would suggest undeleting it and taking it to DRV, as that what should have been done had Jayjg not reversed Doc's actions. --Iamunknown 06:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sent to DRV. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Should it be history-only undeleted during the DRV? I'm not terribly comfortable doing that since I listed it, but it might be helpful for those commenting to be able to see history. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As was already noted, Jayjg was right to correct the mistake (I hope unintentional). If anyone, it is not he who needs to be admonished. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What mistake? Jayjg disagreed with the other admin and undid his decision. His decision might have been right or wrong (I have no idea since I have not reviewed the votes Given the discussion, it seems to me that the majority voted for merging the information to other articles-whether that majority formed a consensus needs more experience which I don't have). His decision I think was right and was done in complete good faith but he should have stated his point through DRV but it was not respectful. --Aminz 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see where it was noted and I strongly dispute the statement. I think it was plain wrong. --Iamunknown 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Note that it was marked as a "minor" change, too. -- ChrisO 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi fellows! I just restored the AfD back to Doc's closed version and the article as well, but I left the DRV header up there, so people visiting the article could comment. I've a problem though; I'm rather ignorant when it comes to templates and have no idea how to get the DRV header to reflect that the article is not, in fact, deleted. Any assistance on this would be both welcomed and appreciated! Thanks in advance! Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 07:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. (It's {{delrev}}, by the way.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. Thanks a lot to Seraphimblade for the help in getting the correct tag on the article! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 07:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the AFD result template to Talk:United States military aid to Israel. --Timeshifter 08:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I note many of the same editors who voted for "delete" of this article were involved in possibly illegally deleting another article about Israel. This one: Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The closing admin comment on that page was "No consensus. Keep, with strong encouragement to merge with Al-Aqsa Intifada on the basis of Wikipedia:Content forking. Jayjg has so messed up the naming and the redirecting of the article. The talk page is under a different name than the article name. See: Talk:Allegations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Every attempt to stop the possibly illegal deletion of that article was reverted by the same tag-team crew of editors. I thought the problem was more a problem with the name. I thought "war crimes" was too strong for all the various alleged human rights violations. So I tried undeleting the article and changing the name to Alleged human rights violations by Israel during Al-Aqsa Intifada. But Jayjg again deleted the page, and redirected again to al-Aqsa Intifada. I have since decided that there are even better names. See my request for help at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict#Requests for NPOV help. Specific articles. Some possible names modeled after other article names. Names such as "Human rights in the Palestinian territories," or "Human rights under Israeli occupation," or "Human rights in Israeli-controlled territories" Tewfik initiated the AFD for the article. Same as for United States military aid to Israel. Jayjg backed up the deletion attempts on both articles. It now seems that both attempts at deletion violated wikipedia guidelines. Neither article had a consensus to delete. I personally think both articles are content forks, not POV forks. Both articles have too much material to be dealt with well in a few paragraphs in another article.--Timeshifter 09:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an "illegal" deletion, only an improper one. I'm not going to pass judgment about whether the deletions you highlighted above were improper or not, but you're certainly right in saying that there are some very questionable things going on in the Arab-Israeli-related articles. As Fred Bauder rightly says, Jayjg has a long history of partisan activism in this area and it's not the first time he's acted in this way ([1]). A lot of the problems here appear to result from the activities of a clique of political activists; the same names come up over and over again. -- ChrisO 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's disappointing that some people appear to have taken a deletionist line on this. I've proposed a possible solution to the issue on DRV, which would establish a consistent series of articles on bilateral US military relations - see [2] for details. -- ChrisO 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been noted that Jayjg has a history of partisan activism in this area. The question is to what extent he is permitted to use his admin privilages to support his POV. Is reversing the closure of an already closed deletion debate permitted? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just note that some of the most bitter denunciations of Jayjg's preferred area of editing comes from (some of the) people who have been guilty of egregious POV-pushing in the same area themselves. My suggestion is that everyone in this thread just simmer down until Jay has had a chance to comment. I think that's fair to ask. IronDuke 14:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we Jay should explain his actions here. But I must point out that the only "bitter denunciations" I have seen here were the adhomeniam attacks in IronDuke's preceeding comment. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no ad hominem when no specific person is targeted. IronDuke is absolutely 100% correct: Quite a large number of the people who consistently attack Jayjg are people who have their own, opposing biases. And yet, of course, they are never wrong themselves, it's always "administrator abuse", or "illegal editing", or something or the other. It's always "jayjg is pushing his POV", never "Jayjg is reverting other's POV pushings". The fact is, Abu ali, you don't know whether Jayjg was using his admin privileges to support his POV or not: that is an assumption you are making, and as we're already discussing logical fallacy here, the assumption is ungrounded because you don't know what is going on in Jayjg's brain. Lets all just stop "assuming" things already, unless it's "good faith". That's the ONLY thing we should be assuming at the moment: it seems many of Jayjg's critics are forgetting that. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more a question of Jayjg's judgment rather than his good faith. I don't doubt that Jayjg believed that he was acting in good faith. The real issue here is whether his actions were well judged. Let's confine the discussion to that issue, rather than straying into assumptions about his motives. -- ChrisO 18:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying: He believed he was acting in good faith, so therefore we should treat him in good faith. I'm only commenting as per above based on comments that don't treat him in good faith. I'm not touching the issue whether his actions were "well judged or not" because I frankly don't know enough. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've been away sleeping and working while all this blew up. I find the whole thing really quite baffling. I've asked jayig for an explanation of his actions: [3]. I most resent having my considered decision rolled back as 'nonsense' by a fellow. I'd have been happy to discuss the close with him and review any mistake I might have made. He only had to ask.--Doc^g 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think CJCurrie should have spoken to Jay before bringing it here, or better still, should have left it for Jayjg and Doc Glasgow to sort out between them. We should wait to hear what Jay has to say before throwing any more stones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm in discussing the issue publicly. It's preferable to let the community review this properly rather than rely on backroom deals. Nor should Jayjg's actions be off-limits to public discussion, particularly as this seems to be a recurrent pattern of behaviour on his part. There's no code of admin omertà and nor should there be. IMO, CJCurrie acted completely properly in bringing here. It's the best way of getting the input of people without axes to grind. -- ChrisO 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the sound of axes busily grinding that makes me say CJCurrie should have raised it with Jay directly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is an assumption of "back room deals". This should have been worked out between Doc and Jay first. Doesn't stop CJCurrie from bringing it up for public debate, but this is the Administrator noticeboard: this is not deletion review. CJCurrie was not personally harmed by an admin's action: he's got no standing to bring an "investigation" against Jayjg. CJCurrie's appropriate action was to bring this up at DRV, not here. The only person with standing to bring a complaint here is Doc, IMHO. If I'm not clear enough, let me be more so: if you have a problem with a deletion, you go to deletion review. That's what it is there for. Not here.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't much care what happens to the article (otherwise I'd be commenting in the DRV). But I don't think CJCurrie can be faulted for bringing this up here. Someone who disagreed with Doc's closing should take it to DRV, that's obvious. But Jayjg's overruling was so surprising that it's not obvious to take to DRV. It looks like the beginning of a wheel war, and that's a valid topic of discussion at ANI. I don't want to see users chastized for bringing up an issue that concerns them. It's not always obvious to every user what is the proper discussion area for every topic. Rather than saying someone has "no standing" to raise a topic, I'd rather users feel welcome to bring anything into the sunshine without being scolded for it. And I certainly don't accept the notion that only certain people can raise certain issues. — coelacan — 20:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well put coelacan!! I couldn't agree with you more. MetsFan76 22:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages communication can hardly be seen as "backroom deals," more like the first step. I also note that this article seems strikingly similar in many respects to the Military equipment of Israel entry I authored a few months ago (although, I do think there is room for a United States military aid to Israel one; maybe not in its current from, but as an encyclopedic subject). El_C 18:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd agree, but there's too much POV-pushing, cliquery and outright bullying associated with Arab-Israeli topics on Wikipedia to make that approach a satisfactory one. This sort of thing seems to be a recurring, maybe even systemic, issue. In this particular case, admin powers appear to have been used in a brusque, unilateral and aggressive fashion in an immensely controversial topic area - not for the first time. No backroom deal is going to resolve the bad feeling that causes (it's not as if Doc was the only person involved - for the record, I'm wholly uninvolved in this incident). The only real solution here is for everyone (not just Jayjg) to de-escalate, act more thoughtfully and be restrained in using admin powers. Otherwise we're going to be back here yet again in the future with more of the same sort of complaints. -- ChrisO 19:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, do you really think it is appropriate to quote a misleadingly titled AN/I post which spends as much, if not more time discussing your alleged improper use of admin tools, in order to make whatever implication? It may not have been your intent, but it seems that this whole thing has gone in a "jump on Jay" direction, with much of the chorus resounding from those in content-disputes with Jay, or who are otherwise not speaking from the most neutral of positions. Tewfik^Talk 02:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may, but "jump on Jay"???? Jay's actions were completely out of line and he was called out on them. That's how it works for any other editor here. Why should Jay get treated any differently? MetsFan76 03:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. We're supposed to be accountable, after all. As I recall, Tewfik, didn't you call me out for my actions on AN/I a while back? That's how it works. -- ChrisO 08:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, that seems to me to be the fault of the people involved with editing Arab-Israeli topics moreso than the administrators getting involved. I won't attempt to hide my POV on this: I believe that Israeli and Middle Eastern related articles are systemically attacked by certain editors pushing either a pro-Arab or anti-Israeli (depending on the article) POV. I also believe that when they are called out on their POV pushing by appropriate admin action, their immediate response is "This is just POV bias pushing by zionist admins trying to hate on Arabs." I've seen too many incidents where editors have been attacked and accused of things like "working for mossad" or being "cover ups for the Jews". Granted, there have been issues from the other direction as well, but much of this seems a case to me where you have a very loud, very vocal interest group pushing a POV, and then claiming that anyone who disagrees with them is biased, any admins involved are abusing their powers, etc. etc. It's disruptive, and now it is starting to find its way onto AN/I, which should be a bastion against such disruptive editing, and I'm sick of it. I'm not excusing anything that Jayjg may have done because I'm not that familiar with it, I'm just simply pointing out that you're right: there IS a systemic issue, and that all complaints against administrators in middle eastern topics, specifically arab-israeli topics, should be taken with a hefty grain of salt, and the claims advanced by editors on such topics be vetted before being assumed at face value. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree 100%. I don't think I'd disagree with a single word you've said, actually. But there's also a danger that admins involved in controversial topics can end up in a siege mentality and thinking that they're the last line of defence against a rabble of POV-pushers. I should know - I've been there myself as a veteran editor of Balkans articles, dealing with aggressive Serbian, Croatian, Albanian, Macedonian and Greek editors for nearly four years now. In the end, I came to believe that the way to deal with that sort of thing was to gain the trust of the mainstream editors on both sides by being fair, being willing to look at both sides of an argument, insisting on the use of reliable sources and being restrained in using admin tools (and deferring to other admins where it could be seen as improper for me to use my tools). It seems to have worked; I now get editors from the various sides regularly asking me for assistance in resolving issues. The bottom line is that one needs to build trust rather than stoke confrontation. -- ChrisO 20:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, SlimVirgin. I wish, however, that in the first place the conocerned administrator consulted the closing admin then, if the two were unable to reach an agreement and considered the disagreement based upon personal opinions but upon policy, taken it to DRV. --Iamunknown 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There should also be a United States military aid to Colombia, of course. El_C 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in my proposal at [4]. I've been trolling Jane's for relevant info and will have a go at creating US-Israel military relations as a prototype for a "US-<foo> military relations" series of articles covering a standardised range of topics including military aid. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this suggestion. -- ChrisO 19:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be very useful to have these sort of subarticles when the main -Relations article becomes too lengthy. El_C 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg has responded here [5] and here [6] ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Israel-United States military relations

Following the AfD debate and DRV discussion on United States military aid to Israel, I've created Israel-United States military relations in an effort to resolve the outstanding issues. Key points:

• The new article has a wider scope, covering military relations in general, military aid, procurement, joint military activities and significant controversies.
• The article is intended to be the prototype for a series of x-United States military relations articles; I've written it around a template that can be used for any article of this type. See Talk:Israel-United States military relations for an explanation of the template.
• The article parallels the existing Israel-United States relations article as a spinout and expansion of the military relations aspects.
• All the content is referenced. :-) It's a combination of expanded relevant bits from Israel-United States relations, merged content from United States military aid to Israel and a substantial amount of new content, mostly from Jane's.

I've proposed a merger of United States military aid to Israel into Israel-United States military relations (although I should note that I've already merged everything I feel need to be merged).

Please take a look at the new article and leave comments on the talk page. -- ChrisO 10:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic soapboxing and disruption by User:The Anonymous One

User:The Anonymous One has been here a short time and has accumulated an impressive collection of admonitions and "final" warnings from myself and a plethora of other editors.

His general modus operandi is to post anti-Catholic soapboxing comments on the Humanities Ref Desk. He has also along the way managed to insult Islam too (see my warning on his talk page).

His responses to my warnings clearly indicates that this user cannot see that his editing is disruptive or offensive, rendering the chances of improvement of behaviour minimal.

I have suggested to him that he does not post on any religious topic, as he's incapable of avoiding giving offence, but he has ignored this and, indeed, reposted deleted objectionable posts about Catholicism on the Ref Desk.

Admin attention will be gratefully welcomed. --Dweller 08:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur with Dweller. As I have said repeatedly, the questions posed by this user are incidental to the manifesto he pursues at quite tedious length, usually on the Humanities Desk. It is soapboxing of the worst kind. Clio the Muse 08:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the above, this comment [7] was particularly offensive.--Mantanmoreland 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

please review this block

All that is a problem, and I've no doubt that the user is past the point of WP:POINT. What bothers me even more is the injection of original research into articles, and I warned them for this back on the 16th. I've now blocked for 31 hours for repeated NOR violation, specifically citing end times. Please review this block, and feel free to undo or adjust it if I am afk and not answering. ··coelacan 08:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support block (obviously). I'll be happy to continue keeping an eye on this user if/when he returns. --Dweller 11:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I definitely support this block. I spent a long time reading through this user's contributions (so-called), and it's really quite a body of bad work with bad intentions. --TotoBaggins 12:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support the block: The fellow attempts to tie up the Reference Desks with polemics, and he inserts polemics into article? Oh, this is not good and not a good sign for a productive wiki-life at all. Utgard Loki 12:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that he's simply asking a question rather than directly insulting Catholics. Maybe he's a Catholic himself who wants to know how to refute arguments made against the Catholic faith? --BlarghHgralb 04:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If that were the case, the questions should have been phrased accordingly. There are ways to taunt and to offend religious feelings without "directly insulting" readers. Whether the user in question is Catholic himself doesn't change anything. One way of adding insult to injury is to stubbornly and repeatedly ask taunting questions on the same denomination of faith (we've seen this happen to various beliefs at the reference desk), questions based on false premises, questions alluding to what would be directly insulting. Queries of this kind are usually given a decent amount of WP:AGF at first, but when the same registered user (with dubious editing history in general) taunts us over and over again, it is seen and felt as disruption.---Sluzzelin talk 06:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't blocked for the Reference Desk disruption, which I have not really evaluated, but only for the WP:NOR violation in article space. ··coelacan 07:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Baronetcies articles

Sockpuppetry on Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet AfD

David Lauder has just !voted on this AfD, despite earlier !voting from IP 81.151.246.175. This IP has previously edited the Morham article, and the only other contributors to that article were David Lauder and a bot. The IP is a British Telecom in the London area, as can be seen here. David Lauder uses a British Telecom IP, as can be seen here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I deny this bonkers charge. I live in Scotland and if you look at the map shown for the location of one of the IP addresses you will see they suggest the stretch of coastline between Edinburgh and Newcastle! (Second last pointer, above). I have no doubt British Telecom service more people than myself and on similar IPs; and probably they have a central server. Yes, I set up the article on Morham and I am pleased indeed that someone has added something intelligent to it. Must it always be me? The complainant is a very consistant supporter of User:Vintagekits, and my personal feeling is that these people do not act at all in WP:Good faith. If they really have a seriously worthwhile complaint about the vast amount of effort I have contributed to Wikipedia I would be interested to see it. But I do not see going around making every attempt to eliminate from Wikipedia those they have taken a dislike to as a legitimate occupation. My work and any comments is there for all to see and evaluate. David Lauder 19:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's more evidence to prove your use of IPs to try and !votestack in discussions. How about this one in another AfD you were involved in? Or how about this one in a discussion involving honorific prefixes you were involved in? There's also another edit from that IP pushing the POV you're always trying to push.

I assume it's just coincidence that the IP edited Morham, an article that's only ever been edited by you and a bot? I assume it's just coincidence that the IP supported the retention of the article about your close friend User:Kittybrewster? The duck test says otherwise. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the evidence does appear fairly conclusive that you voted twice in that AFD, David Lauder. I would counsel you not to do so again. In fact, I'd recommend that everyone involved be on their best behaviour. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now looked again at this and the BT evidence shows that the posts to which you refer could have been made by anyone within their 81.128.0.0 to 81.159.255.255 ranges. I have no interest in the other subjects which are associated with the "fairly conculsive evidence" you refer to.David Lauder 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

David, please note that Matthew Brown (User:Morven), who commented above, is a member of the arbitration committee and has checkuser access, meaning he can examine the server logs to determine which IPs you have edited from while logged in to your account. Unless he wishes to clarify that he was speaking as an ordinary editor and looking only at the comments in this thread, I believe it is safe to assume that the "evidence" to which he refers is the checkuser report of your recent contributions. I don't care whether you admit what you have been caught doing, or just go away quietly. However, people are watching, and if you do this again you are likely to be blocked for disruption. Thatcher131 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there conclusive evidence somewhere of me actually being disruptive on Wikipedia? David Lauder 16:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I just came across this worrying edit.[8] The editor who actually made the edit defended himself by saying that it was a hurried cut and paste, but I notice there was time to change the target's name. I feel this is sufficent to initaite an RfCU. -Will Beback · † · 10:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But who was this edit by? I assume you are not blaming me?David Lauder 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this was the result of a checkuser showing it to be very likely indeed that the IP edits and David Lauder (talk · contribs) edits before and after the IP edits were from the same person. I would note that there has been much in the way of dubious behavior during this AFD from other users as well. I'd encourage all users to keep behaviour civil and avoid sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, encouraging your friends to come vote, harassing other contributors, etc etc. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the contribs of Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears some examination. He appears to be quite forthright in opinions and have a particular dislike for kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet. --kingboyk 13:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• He already has a proven sockpuppet- User:DownDaRoad- this account is blocked indefinitely. Astrotrain 14:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. I am almost flattered to be the subject of so much passion. But I have initiated (I hope) a request for an IPCheck at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Vintagekits. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • After having found one instance of sockpuppeting on this AFD, I'd checked pretty much everyone else. Nobody else is doing it in such a blatant way. However, a lot of new accounts or long-dormant accounts have contributed; I suspect a call to action on an external site. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ganging up

I would draw to your attention the developing scenario whereby User:Vintagekits and his chum 303 are leading the pack in a variety of attacks against User:Kittybrewster who is a gentleman and a scholar and has contributed countless hours of industry to Wikipedia. Regardless of Kittybrewster's obvious standing in the world, the Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet article has now been put up for deletion: in my opinion a clear exercise in spite. (See [[9]]) Those who support the article are sneered and jeered at. David Lauder 11:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out the obvious sockpuppetry, like when you !voted twice yesterday David. As for the countless hours of industry contributed to Wikipedia, see WP:COIN. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unproved, and irelevant to my complaint. I am concerned that you deride the efforts of others. Sir William has always declared anything under WP:COIN. David Lauder 11:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you see WP:COIN you'll see that's not true. Perhaps I should also mention User:Counter-revolutionary, who was made personal attacks against a number of people commenting on the AfD? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please address your own activities here. David Lauder 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of addressing your attempt at mudslinging given you have provided absolutely no evidence. This is not the first time you have tried such a tactic against an editor, for example see here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no limits to complaints on these noticeboards as far as I know. I have given an exceptional example in one AfD. Another is the AfD on the Auditor of the Exchequer in Scotland, Robert Arbuthnot (auditor). Any administrator taking a few minutes to look at these two AfD's alone will get a very clear taste of what you are about. David Lauder 18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Would administrators please look at the example of pure and utter malice by User:Vintagekits on Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet, where he has reverted a simple academic edit and made the following comment: "Undid revision 126634829 by David Lauder (talk) I prefer this one for the self-promotionalist". David Lauder 15:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that related issues are also being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Arbuthnot_family__.28history.7CWatchlist_this_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D. (It would appear that the discussion there is rather more constructive, btw). --kingboyk 15:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible block for 212.101.17.44

Hi, I am having an issue on the Yoseikan Budo article. A user at this IP address is continuously deleting a link, due to what the major editor of the article, User:Mateo2006, and I believe to be a political conflict the user has with the organisation who's link they are deleting. The assumption is that they are an ex member of the organisation, or just unhappy that other Yoseikan Budo organisation exists. Either way it is purely subjective and they are expressing their own opinion by deleting the link. The link they are deleting clearly belongs on the page, for example, if you do a Google search for Yoseikan Budo, it is the first entry! Regards, Grahamwild 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I will warn him to steer clear of WP:3RR. He's used up his three reverts, so if he does it again, you can consider reporting it to WP:AN3 (notwithstanding the fact that 24 hours have passed). I hope this solves the problem. YechielMan 18:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the best thing is I am learning things about wiki through this process. Regards, Grahamwild 09:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen

I am unblocking Gen. von Klinkerhoffen. He was originally blocked and given a community banned. Basically he socked after his main account was blocked indef. He received no prior blocks, and understands that what got him blocked is wrong. (see his talk page). Basically upon talking to him I unprotected his user talk page to allow him to make his case, and I feel that he understands. Heck go see the article that he wrote on his talk page. In any case we have little to lose and much to gain. I feel that he has shown good faith, especially when he wrote that article. As a result I am going to unblock him, and see how things go :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious to see how this plays out. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not take it back to the community sanction noticeboard? I'm not at all happy with one administrator unilaterally overturning a community ban without discussion. --ElKevbo 03:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Community bans are not done by trial. This notice is quite sufficient. If you have some actual objection on the merits, please do state it. —Centrx→talk • 03:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow,I'm not sure about this, considering how agressively he didn't get it, I saw several reports across ANI and eventually to CN. Hopefully he realizes that he's on a very short leash. SirFozzie 03:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I'll relist immediately at CN if this goes through. Nardman1 03:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It started on his talk page were I also endorsed the possibility of an unblock. He had an {{unblock}} up for a day or two and no one else commented. He even took it upon himself to create an article on his talk page, thus furthering the notion that he had reformed and understood his mistakes. John Reaves (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "goes through"? He's already unblocked. John Reaves (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So I see. This unblock violates official Wikipedia policy. It clearly states only the Arbcom may review these bans. I'm going to relist at CN. Nardman1 03:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any provision that states that the community is not allowed to review its own community bans. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

For me, the issue is that the community didn't review the ban - a handful of administrators did so. If administrators are going to ignore community bans, then please do away with the charade so we all know where we stand. --ElKevbo 04:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So what? You'd rather have the handful of editors at WP:CN review the ban and then it would be okay? I didn't know that the few editors at WP:CN constituted "the community" any more than the administrators monitoring WP:ANI. --Iamunknown 06:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nardman1 and ElKevbo are misunderstanding the nature of community bans. See WP:BAN#Community_ban. The unblock is legitimate (whether it's well-advised is a different question) and is not based on "ignoring" the ban but rather on the unblocker seeing reasonable hope that the block is no longer needed. So, see how it goes. 75.62.7.22 06:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that section is about appeals by the banned user if no one will unblock him. Here, he is unblocked, so he does not need to appeal. —Centrx→talk • 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Centrx is right. Eagle101 didn't "violate Wikipedia policy". The idea that "a handful of administrators" are incapable of determining community consensus is misconceived. --Tony Sidaway 13:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) While I STRONGLY disagree with the unblock, in form and content, I don't think you're going to find an admin willing to reblock him based on community discussion without further misbehavior and start a wheel war. SirFozzie 03:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to make the point clear, if he does any trolling at all, feel free to re-block. I did this out of the hope that he might improve, and learn from his mistakes. If he does not I have no qualms whatsoever with anyone including ryulong (the guy who did the original unblock) with reblocking him. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 07:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

He has a much lower threshold for blocking. You can block someone a lot easier per "reinstating community ban for trolling" compared to "vandalism" or whatnot. The point may be moot at the minute, since all he's actually done so far is edit his talk page. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 11:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there was never any community discussion about this (the block). At least, I didn't see any. I would advise to keep an eye on genvon's editing patterns here, but do list it at CN if you wish and maybe we can get some input on this. // Pilotguy radar contact 13:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please see WP:CN#User:Gen._von_Klinkerhoffen. Also note [10]. His new contribution he was unblocked in order to contribute was a copyvio. Nardman1 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

According to his comment at User_talk:Gen._von_Klinkerhoffen#Article, he believed this text to be freely licensed (and admitted the text was copied before creating the article). --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hostile editor at Creation-evolution controversy

User_talk:Hrafn42 is engaged in disruptive edit warring at the creation-evolution controversy article, At 05:20, 28 April 2007 I responded to some of his concerns, but before I could make the changes I promised, he deleted the disputed text at 05:24, 28 April 2007. This started as I was adding content with Hrafn42's this wholesale replacement, at 03:39, 28 April 2007, which does not seem to be assuming good faith. I reverted his change here, with the comment "Work in progress, please read the sources before deleting other contributor's material". In addition to a very shrill tone on my talk page and the Creation-Evolution controversy talk page, he has resorted to adding uncited material here.

Clearly, User_talk:Hrafn42 is engaging in disruptive editing, doesn't seem to be assuming good faith, and has an increasingly shrill tone. I am not sure what you can do about this, but please do something so I can continue my contributions to the Creation-evolution controversy article. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 05:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The sort of behavior from Hrafn42 is totally unacceptable and has gone on way, way too long. Why was this brought here earlier? Letting disruption get to this stage only makes things worse and drives aways productive editors. I've issued a Hrafn42 a warning and if he is still at over the next few days when I check in then I think a block to get his attention would be in order. FeloniousMonk 05:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Hrafn42 is still at it on the creation-evolution controversy page, despite this warning from User:FeloniousMonk at 05:57, 28 April 2007.

For example, this this edit at 06:07, 28 April 2007 and edit occurred at 06:21, 28 April 2007. This is a new section that I added and it is diffucult to touch up while User_talk:Hrafn42 is continuing to work on it after he has been warned. Thanks for your help. ImprobabilityDrive 06:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my eariler warning to Hrafn42. Looking deeper into the issue at that article I'm less convinced that this isn't a simple content dispute, not a behavioral issue. ImprobabilityDrive is just going to have to accept that content he creates is going to be edited. Mercilessly. FeloniousMonk 06:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, he is removing cited material that accurately refelects the references. And he is choosing to cause choas on a section. Is this really "just a content dispute?" Thanks again for your attention, I am sorry you reversed your earlier warning, though. ImprobabilityDrive 07:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The cited material did not "accurately reflect the references," as I stated in the article talk page here. This, like most of this editor's claims above, is a misrepresentation of the facts. Hrafn42 11:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak (talk · contribs) and Sexuality articles

User:Bosniak has made some strange edits to sexuality related articles - see here, here, and here. I just wanted to clear up whether or not these edits are tantamount to trolling or vandalism. Ivan Kricancic 07:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit #1 i'm not sure on, Edit #2 i've reverted requiring a cite before it gets reincluded, Edit #3 is a personal opinion stated on a talk page and is perfectly acceptable.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, #1 looks pretty strongly OR to me and quite POV, and #2 is fairly obviously intended to insult/provoke, while #3 is useless, frivolous, and, no doubt, designed to get a reaction. Everything in these suggests a very young and/or attention-seeking editor. Because the editor isn't warring over a particular issue but is, instead, attempting to get into chats/arguments, any further pattern like this would probably amount to evidence of trolling or disruption. Geogre 13:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Request block on IP 121.247.253.70

Please see Special:Contributions/121.247.253.70 The edit summaries itself are abusive This Ip should be blocked for a week or so to get this abusive person to his senses. Page protection required. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Turns out IPs arent the same every time. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This anonymous editor is the permblocked Vishal1976. He tends to vent his frustration from time to time. There is no point in blocking this IP. This user uses a number of IPs to vandalise. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 08:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not puting the list of articles These are the articles :

• Khandoba
• Maratha

I will leave it to the two users to ask for PP if they want but for now ill just list it here:

• User_talk:Venu62
• User_talk:Mel_Etitis --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone quickly fix Steven Gerrard?

Hi, I just noticed that the Steven Gerrard article has been vandalised in such a way that I cannot easily repair it. User:Awoogaga moved Steven Gerrard to Diving rat face, but as the article now exists as a redirect page, I cannot move it back. Cheers, aLii 09:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Infact, could Fat Lampard also be moved back to Frank Lampard, and Boring F.C. be deleted please. aLii 09:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that, I've fixed those OK myself, and put the redirects up for speedy deletion. I can't fix the Gerrard page because some anon has edited the redirect page since it was created by the vandal I think, aLii 09:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Freakofnurture fixed that already. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Can someone go and clear the reports on AIV? There's reports from 6 hours ago.... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

cleared - Alison ☺ 10:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl

I feel the behaviour of User:BrownHairedGirl started to borderline Wikipedia:Harassment. User has made the same/similar comment (in my view violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA) on a number of cfds: Category:Islam in Kurdistan cfd, Category:Films by culture cfd

User now made a similar remark at Category talk:People by nationality just 45 minutes after my comment.

-- Cat ^chi? 13:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

See the top of the page: this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is not. Stalking is prohibited behaviour. -- Cat ^chi? 13:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

An admin looking into possibly problematic behaviour of another user is not prohibited behaviour. Clicking on "User contributions" is not prohibited behaviour. If you were being followed around day after day for negative reasons that might be wiki stalking. This isn't. --kingboyk 14:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well, thanks for the second opinion. I withdraw the request. Sorry for the trouble -- Cat ^chi? 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User page of User:Kuban kazak

Links "FASCIST PIGS" to Estonians. Administrator intervention requested. DLX 07:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted, left a note for the user. Probably the end of it. ··coelacan 07:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. DLX 08:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The image and link are back. DLX 14:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the image is back. The link is gone. I don't care about the image, to be perfectly honest. I don't know, maybe someone else does. And by the way, you don't have to move this thread when you comment in it anew. ··coelacan 16:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rollback?

Resolved

I just noticed a rather extensive copyvio at Elton Brown. Could someone with The Tools please roll it back to this version to get it out of the page history? Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cryptic just took care of it, so this is resolved. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso (talk · contribs)

Amoruso (talk · contribs) is making it impossible write good, accurate articles with excellent sources in Wikipedia and his edit summaries are, at the very least, highly misleading. Here are two of the worst examples from today:

• [11] mass delestion of excellent sources from the Golan Heights article in order to present an idiosyncratic (and unsourced) version of history, with the edit summary "rv gross violation of wikipedia rules".
• [12] mass deletion of excellent sources from the British Mandate of Palestine article, again to present an idiosyncratic (and unsourced) version of history, with the edit summary "rv removal of sources".

The relevant history is actually explained in the articles themselves and has been discussed in detail on the relevant talk pages. From past experience either of the deletions above would result in a ban if the evidence was brought before the Arbitration Committee. I would therefore appreciate action to prevent this pattern of editing by Amoruso so that there is some chance of getting these articles up to a good standard, with every signigicant claim properly attributed to reliable sources. --Ian Pitchford 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Current Instantnood sock

Instantnood = Michael G. Davis

Instantnood has been permanently banned for disruption. During his many long bans preceding the permanent ban it was found he'd use sockpuppets to edit while banned. His use of sockpuppets included setting them up with contribution histories months before (the User:Privacy account is nearly two years old).

User:Michael G. Davis is another Instantnood sock. I reported it to WP:AIV via Twinkle but AIV said it was too complicated for block on sight. Really, I don't think it is - look at the article history for Macro-control. Privacy edits while 'nood is on a month long ban, Instantnood returns and makes the same edits, 'nood is banned again, so Privacy edits, now 'nood is gone forever and Privacy CheckUser'd as a sock: enter User:Michael G. Davis.

That's the most single poignant example. Here's the rest:

• zerg rushing massive find and replace from one term to the other across dozens of articles - check
• article name move warring - check
• editing on HK time corresponding to 'noods off-work schedule (MGD claims to be Canadian) - check
• wiki-stalking Huaiwei and myself - check
• grammar peculiarities - check

What's different is that MGD edits via Tor open proxies to avoid CheckUser.

This needs admin attention quickly please. The zerg rushing find-and-replace takes forever to cleanup. I have a feeling this will be a weekly occurrence until 'nood finally gets bored. SchmuckyTheCat 15:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Michael G. Davis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

  —dgies^t_c 16:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Klaksonn and Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah

Today I noticed that Klaksonn (talk • contribs) recreated Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah and Template:User_Hezbollah (as Template:User_Hezbollah 2) for the fourth time (since April 2) today which I speedily deleted again. I blocked him for a week, only to relent because I was concerned that I may have overreacted since he hasn't of yet re-added it to his userpage. However, his downright hostility towards me (for example: he has previously accused me of being racist and having double standards merely because I was Australian) and other editors as well as total disregard for policy has exhausted my patience. Now that he has threatened to have me de-opped, I hereby ask other administrators to review his behaviour and send him a strong message that we will not continue to tolerate such inflammatory displays on user pages or his incivility. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You told him on the 2nd to take it to deletion review and not to recreate it. He did it anyway. He also seems quite incivil on the talk page. I don't feel you were in error anywhere on this one. IrishGuy ^talk 20:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Recreated category per "Likud Wikipedians", "Yisrael Beytenu Wikipedians", "Kadima Wikipedians" and so on.. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't recreate the category for the last time today, as you sadly claim. I recreated it weeks ago and no one seemed to have a problem with it. I bet you knew that. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your rationale is irrelevant. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. You were asked to seek deletion review rather than constantly recreating. You chose to recreate anyway...while making personal attacks and calling Netsnipe a racist. IrishGuy ^talk 20:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the above is a valid arguement. My rationale is very relevant. Other categories exist, I don't see why the one I created is inappropriate. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I also see you're making it personal by trying to get me blocked for 3RR, reverting edits to an article I created. Very low. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 21:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He just broke the 3RR rule. As I have reverted him, someone else should block him. He was warned, he did it anyway. IrishGuy ^talk 21:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How am I "making it personal"? I don't even know you. I read this report and looked at your edit history. IrishGuy ^talk 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it is 5 reverts now. IrishGuy ^talk 21:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts to an article I created. I have provided sources, one of which from an American governmental organization, saying IC is one of the finest educational insitutions in the world. I find it normal for this to provoke some jealousy. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 21:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Three-revert rule applies to all articles, whether or not you created them. --Iamunknown 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

When one editor was about to break this rule, IrishGuy somehow intervened to get ME blocked for 3RR. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Klaksonn for thirty-six hours for edit-warring. Feel free to continue discussing the Hezbollah template matter, though. -- tariqabjotu 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It has also been the case that Klaksonn has been incivil to me in the past, committing a breach of WP:NPA by calling me a racist, and telling me to "Buzz off", after I nominated the template he has recreated, for the first time. Myself, Netsnipe and Klaksonn were in quite a heated debare which resulted in Netsnipe blocking Klaksonn for 24 hours.In this case, and bearing in mind this user has previously been blocked for longer, and warned to behave himself when he came back (which he obviously has NO intention of doing, I would ask these previous blocks to be taken into consideration and for the present 36 hour block to be severely extended. I see no other way of keeping this user under control. Thor Malmjursson 01:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all of Kalksonn's contributions are inappropriate. I don't think they warrant an indefblock yet. --Iamunknown 01:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking for an indef, but surely his past incivility, bad manners, behaviour and downright disregard for rules and procedures should be enough to get him more than one and a half days "time out". Thor Malmjursson 02:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So why exactly is this category not allowed? The Behnam 02:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The initial reason the template and associated category were nominated (in the case of my nomination, for speedy (as devisive and inflammatory)) is that Hezbollah is generally viewed almost worldwide as a terrorist organisation involved in illegal activities. In my estimation, if someone were to create [[Category:Wikipedians who support Al-Qaeda]], [[Category:Wikipeidans who would like to be suicide bombers]], [[Category:Wikipedians who smoke dope]] or [[Category:Wikipedians with pedophilic tendencies]], they would all get the same treatment. The activity they support is illegal, and therefore could be devisive. Could also start a war with someone creating [[Category:Wikipedians who do not support Hezbollah]]. In short, devisive, inflammatory and plain wrong. Wikipedia is not a battleground! Thor Malmjursson 02:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though it is a slippery slope in both directions. If expressing support for Hezbollah is not acceptable, what political opinion statements are next? Why not scrap all of them anyway? They don't serve the project, but they can negatively affect it. True? The Behnam 02:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

False debate on it's face. This stuff comes up almost exclusively in regard to a couple of contentious geo-political problems. No one complains ' He has the i'm a democrat' userbox, or the GOP userbox, or the Labour party box. No, people complain when someone's got a terrorist group, and then people scream outrage because they secretly support that terrorist group too, but are smart enough to not advertise it. When it's pointed out that blowign up 3 year olds is generally reviled, they scream 'then get rid of all userboxes, you're repressing my freedom'. No, we're going with widespread consensus that 99% of userboxes are fine, and 1% need to be examined and possibly removed. the "I support suicide bombers who blame everything on jews instead of their own lack of self-accountability" Userboxes should be removed and deleted. The 'I support a major party in the politics of my own nation' boxes are fine. No one's complaining about the 'This user is a member of Fatah' Userbox; it's a legit party. (Is there such a box?) ThuranX 03:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's as naked a POV statement as I've ever heard. A terrorist isn't just someone you don't like. Established Zionist groups started out as blatantly terrorist organizations, for instance, and arguably much of what Israel still does is state terrorism -- the Israelis regularly blow up 3-year-old children too, use collective punishment, etc. In fact, the early Zionist groups in Palestine were often more blatantly terrorist than Hizb'Allah is now. Face it, you either allow people to profess faith for liberation movements, or you don't. I personally am against all poitical identification as very unencyclopedic -- the pursuit of knowledge should not be politicized any more than it already is by nature. But it seems to be popular on wikipedia, and tolerated. If it's tolerated for one, it must be tolerated for all. If this user has introduced this in a hostile fashion, that should not be tolerated, but the idea behind the addition of such a category is no different than any other political movement.Larry Dunn 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fatah is a legit party!? 68.248.83.41 03:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say it is about as 'legit' as Hamas. Perhaps Hamas is more legitimate from the perspective of political legitimacy, considering the vote. Oh wait, does 'legit' mean acceptable to Israel & friends? I suppose that Fatah is legitimate under that assumption. The Behnam 03:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

More so than Hamas, which has lot more ties to terrorism than Fatah. Even Hamas is more legit than Hezbollah. Both have participated in free elections, both are starting to get major recognition as political parties, not terrorist groups. ThuranX 04:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The user in question was obviously being hostile and as such should be properly dealt with. However, with regards to the larger matter at hand, I have to disagree with some of the users above. Hezbollah is in fact represented in the Lebanese Parliament and as such it does not seem entirely inappropriate for users to believe that category's or infoboxes should be created in "support" or stating their membership in this organization.--Jersey Devil 03:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Devil, in respect of Klaksonn's behaviour, Hostile is to Understatement, as "Minor tremor" is to the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906! Thor Malmjursson 03:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Question one: how do userboxes supporting even relatively non-controversial political parties benefit the encyclopedia?
Question two: how much time is spent arguing over what does or does not cross the line into the unacceptable?
Of course, I'm not arguing for "fair treatment" of this userbox (userboxes don't have rights) which should be deleted either way. But it's time to delete them all. Not userfy, but delete and remove. If some users leave Wikipedia as a result…great. Experience shows that these are often the very same editors who causes other problems in the pursuit of these same opinions; those who are not will accept the removal of contentious material with grace and an eye towards moving forward.
Wikipedia is not a forum for self-expression, national, political, religious or otherwise. When new editors visit another editor's userpage and see it filled with that editor's opinions, they got the wrong idea, and who can blame them? It's our collective responsibility for allowing it.Proabivouac 04:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban userboxes is your solution? Throw a hissy fit and get rid of userboxes. and then say 'well, anyone who goes wasn't worth keeping?' I think you'll find we'll lose hundreds of editors, who will see that as a major step towards thoroughly anonymizing their hobby. You will not just lose problem editors, you'll lose good editors who like that they can be themselves in their wikipedia presence while helping the project. Once Userboxes are gone, the next logical step will be the elimination of almost all text oon userpages, because someone will see identification of rival college enrollment as offensive, rival careers as belittling, and lists of on wiki accomplishments as elitist. We'll have to switch to numbered ID's, adn then we hit reducto ad nauseum. No one on this project (or nearly zero, there might be three or four odd ducks) wants to have a user number, and not name. Userboxes are fine in the vast majority, those supporting terrorist groups, pedophilia (also under discussion on AN/I), and other anti-social, often criminal behaviors need to go. This 'eliminate em all if I can't have my 'kill all the XYZ's' box is childish. ThuranX 11:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you meant reductio ad absurdum? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but ... nauseum, absurdum... either way, the point's the same. Taken too far, everything gets stupid. (and probably sickeningly so.) thanks. ThuranX 03:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-read my comment; I was specifically addressing userboxes supporting political parties. We can recognize three categories of userboxes: those which are helpful (e.g., identifying subject expertise, language fluency, admin status, etc.), those which are useless but benign (probably the majority,) and those which are useless and cause pointless strife. The third of these should be eliminated, because there is no compelling argument to keep them.Proabivouac 01:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the vitriol and insult throwing above, fact is that 1) userboxes are not the goal of the wikipedia project. 2) Editors are offended by userboxes saying that a user supports hezbollah, myself for one. I consider myself a moderate, and I consider myself to have an open mind in terms of userboxes. However, Hezbollah is on at least 6 country's designated terrorist organization lists. Hezbollah has a long and well-documented history of conducting terrorist acts. It is polemic, it is designed to incite and inflame, and it is offensive to me as Jewish editor, that someone would be allowed to have a userbox in support of a group that has advocated, quote: ""If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew." and "“if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”" ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, you're discriminating againt, um, his culture.Proabivouac 11:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's sad to see Hezbollah, a legitimate resistance movement, being compared to crackheads, pedophiles and actual terrorits, when someone like "Thor Malmjursson" is allowed to have a userpage this disturbingly repulsive. This is a sad day. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Compared to actual terrorists.....you mean like the 6 countries that have designated either part or all of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization? Or the European Parliment declaration 2 years ago that recognized "clear evidence" or "terrorist activities" by Hezbollah? Or the AMIA Bombing, the worst terrorist incident in Argentine history, carried out by Hezbollah? Sure. That's legitimate. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And yet again, I come under attack... or rather, my choice of design does...Maybe it would be better if I blank my page. Thor Malmjursson 22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We can argue here 'till the end of life on earth but saying that is generally viewed almost worldwide as a terrorist organisation involved in illegal activities is erroneous (read Hizbollah article) as one might argue the same thing about the U.S. administration. I followed User:Embargo's case for a long time and eventhough i blocked him for a 24h period (for relating his Hezbollah supporting userbox to Israeli massacres- according to him) i never supported admins' actions toward him forbiding him to use any userbox mentioning Hezbollah. If your motto, guys, is NPOV than apply it thru and be fair. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF, I agree that userboxes supporting the U.S. administration, or any other political party, should be deleted.Proabivouac 19:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

All controversial userboxes should be removed outright. Hizbollah is a great resistance organization which mitigates the terrorism committed by the IDF and similar organizations. Hizbollah also has charities and many other things. Not allowing someone to express admiration for Hizbollah is akin to not allowing a userbox that says "this user supports the red cross and UNICEF". All userboxes which say "This user supports Israel's right to exist" or any other similar polemic hate speech should be immediately removed, no questions asked.--Kirby♥time 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um...how exactly is "This user supports Israel's right to exist" hate speech? IrishGuy ^talk 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it implicitly considers Palestinians, the true owners of the land, subhuman and not worthy of having their needs tended to.--Kirby♥time 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That sentence in no way calls anyone subhuman nor does it say Palestinians are not worthy of having their needs tended to. That sentence, your example, isn't even remotely hate speech. IrishGuy ^talk 21:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see it as no different than someone with a userbox stating "This user supports segregation" or "This user supports Apartheid", both of which are unacceptable. Saying that "This User supports Israel's right to exist" is racist, derogatory, and not conducive to a positive editing atmosphere here on wikipedia.--Kirby♥time 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You think it is racist to support Israel's right to exist? That isn't even remotely racist. We actually have an article on racism maybe you should read it. IrishGuy ^talk 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is very racist (along with the whole of zionism) because it favors Jews over other races. Also, it is very offensive that you say it is not racist. Zionism is racism, pure and simple. You ask me to read the racism article; that's funny, seeing how I was about to ask you to read it.--Kirby♥time 21:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead you link to an article with all manner of tags about the article not being neutral. Saying you support Israel's right to exist isn't racist. IrishGuy ^talk 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination"--Kirby♥time 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice that you leave out the detail that it was revoked in 1991. IrishGuy ^talk 22:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so for 16 years, it is considered racism, and then suddenly, bloop! it's not racism anymore. Is this a joke? And ultimately, a substantial part of the world considers it a form of racism. Wikipedia should not cater to zionists.--Kirby♥time 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But getting back to the matter at hand, there are only SIX countries that consider Hizbollah a terrorist organization:

List of entities officially designating Hezbollah as "terrorist"

Entity	Part(s) designated as terrorist	Reference
United States	The entire organization Hezbollah
Canada	The entire organization Hezbollah
Israel	The entire organization Hezbollah
United Kingdom	The Hezbollah External Security Organization
Netherlands	The entire organization Hezbollah
Australia	The Hezbollah External Security Organization

Compare that to how many countries consider Zionism to be racism:

(25) Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, North Korea, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Yemen.

--Kirby♥time 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The UN rescinded the resolution with a vote of 111 to 25 (with 13 abstentions). Obviously, the majority of nations do not agree that Zionism is racism. Regardless, supporting Israel's right to exist isn't the same as being a zionist. IrishGuy ^talk 22:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And the majority of nations do not agree that Hizbollah is terrorist. Either allow them both, or deny them both. And supporting Israel's right to exist is a form of zionism. That's the whole thesis of zionism. That would be like saying "Saying that blacks are inferior isn't the same as being racist".--Kirby♥time 22:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. You were earlier arguing that Zionism is the belief in the superiority of Jews. Supporting the existence of Israel isn't the same as believing in the superiority of Jews. IrishGuy ^talk 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's stupid. Name me a reason why a person would support the existence of Israel if they didn't think that Jews are superior.--Kirby♥time 23:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. This is, once again, beyond the point. Hizbollah and zionism are controversial, period, and users shouldn't be allowed to express their support for either because Wikipedia is not a battleground. I don't have anymore to say about this.--Kirby♥time 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A few points.

1. Zionism doesn't include the belief that Jews are racially superior. Members of any race can become Jews, and Jews are not defined by membership in a race, or a belief system for that matter. Being a Jew neither race nor religion; it is a tribal identity. You can be born into the tribe or join it, and membership in the tribe grants certain privileges. Zionism includes the belief that certain privileges pertaining to citizenship of Israel, the longed-for Jewish homeland, are to be granted to members of this tribe, and that Jews have an obligation as members to support its existence (and, if possible, be a resident there, even if his/her occupation involves being away more often than not). It has nothing to do with racial superiority or race at all. A Jew is a Jew if he/she is descended from a Jewish mother or goes through conversion (which among Jews is less about belief than assumption of obligations), no matter what his/her genetic background is, or whether he/she believes in one god, many gods, or no god at all. There are Arab Israelis and Arab Jews, Pagan Israelis and Pagan Jews, Jews of every race and theology, including atheism; and as long as their mother is/was Jewish or they properly converted, Zionist beliefs as to their rights and duties apply (according to the Zionists, of course).

2. Supporting Israel's right to exist isn't the same as Zionism. There are non-Zionists who support the existence of the presently-established State of Israel for various reasons, there were Zionists before its establishment, and if it were destroyed there would still be Zionists. Zionism is a movement to physically establish a Jewish homeland in what was once called the Land of Israel, especially as opposed to waiting until the coming of the Messiah (and that which shall occur then). The creation of the present State of Israel, as it is, where it is, is the closest those who consider themselves Zionists have acheived and/or been granted. For some, it's not quite what they were trying or praying for. But supporting its right to exist is not synonymous with "being a Zionist".

3. I'm not sure how I feel about a category concerning declared membership in either Hezbollah or Hamas, but I think "supports" is too vague, and impossible to verify in too many instances. Such labels can also too easily be slapped on someone as a perjorative, then sit there for weeks with a fact tag. Even a card-carrying member of a group may not "support" it; sometimes membership in a group or movement means survival under certain regimes. I think someone should both have declared AND demonstrated support for something before it can be asserted, especially if that thing is highly controversial. If some of you think Zionist is just as controversial, maybe someone shouldn't be called that without both declaration and demonstration either.

None of what I've said is meant to conflict with the issues of terrorism, legitimacy, hate speech, etc. They are just additional points for consideration. Rosencomet 23:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I find Kirbytime's allegations that supporting Israel amounts to hate speech grotesque (I'm very interested to learn how he can read my mind and my thoughts and reasonings as to WHY I support Israel, and I find his depiction of the IDF as terrorists, as I've worked in liaison with them, and they are far from "terrorist"). There is nothing legitimate or "resistance" about bombing a Jewish financial assistance building in Argentina, which Hezbollah did in the 90's? As I mentioned before, the EU parliament issued a declaration 2 years ago stating Hezbollah to have engaged in terrorist activities. It is on 6 states designated terrorist organization lists: It should be mentioned that those states make up a significant portion of the UN Security Council, and also, that not every nation maintains a DTO list (For instance, nearly all of the middle eastern states do not).⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree w/ most of your points (yours and Kirby's) as i said above. We can argue forever and i just can invite everyone here to read both Hezbollah and List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state. Again, be fair guys and apply your motto. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a talk page to discuss content disputes. Please move the discussion elsewhere and leave this page to report actionable issues that require admin involvement. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock/meatpuppet theatre

Currently, there is a push on by several editors to include mention of an album by Lee Nysted in the article on Matt Walker (drummer), who purportedly played on said album. This is a continuation of a situation begun at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience, during which Mr. Nysted, backed up by several other editors, attempted to argue that through virtue of a large presence on Google , he and his music were notable and should be included in the encyclopedia. At the time, it was noted that a lot of places sell the album, there are many mentions of it on sites that generally allow user-submitted information (much of which involved a press release), and various other techniques that, IMO, looked a lot like search-engine result inflation. (Links such as this, where mention of a song and links to Nysted’s album can be found in the comments section of an unrelated blog, for example.)

The AFD led to a checkuser case, discussed at AN, which came back with a positive result. He and several socks were blocked, but Nysted then went on and was unblocked with a promise to behave himself. He then went on and started a short campaign against the CheckUser system, discussed again at AN, that resulted, in early March, with his being indef-blocked once again.

Now, we have several users who have surfaced and are trying to get Nysted’s album noted on the aforementioned Matt Walker’s page. These users, notably including 67.186.123.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 63.93.197.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 12.35.96.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – two of which resolve to A.G. Edwards, an investment firm that Nysted has previously claimed association with (and, in fact, I’ve managed to find correlating evidence to, on the second page of this PDF). 67.186.123.21 (which resolves to Lake Forest, IL) has signed at various times as “WebmasterSD,” who has now registered an account. A look through the discussion at Talk:Matt Walker (drummer) will give an indication of how this discussion has gone. The editors and IPs have argued that a discography should not be concerned with notability (despite the disc not being mentioned on Walker’s own page, according to one editor), have declared editors who have previously interacted with Nysted as not being neutral and failed to assume good faith, have suggested that all the editors against Nysted are part of some mysterious MySpace cabal, and generally conducted themselves much as Nysted and his supporters have in the past (as indicated in this deleted rant. WebmasterSD has also commented numerous times that he “practices law in Illinois,” which I suggest is an attempt at a chilling effect on the discussion.

Previous ANI discussions of this current wave are here and here.

I bring this to the attention of the noticeboard because, while I have just filed a checkuser request, I suspect it may come back inconclusive because of the company IPs involved. It may require an uninvolved admin or two to look through the evidence as to whether this is in fact sock/meatpuppetry and to make some decisions regarding how to deal with the editors involved. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I too would urge at least a couple of admins to look into this as well, preferably some who have no previous interaction with Nysted or related content. I've been dealing with this since yesterday and apparently the fact that I previously had interaction with Nysted (lifted an autoblock; discussed AFD canvassing by another editor related to Mario Party articles), semi-protected the article, and opened an RFC makes me not an objective party here. I'd welcome another set of eyes here and review of my actions at Matt Walker (drummer) if need be.--Isotope23 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's more going on than meets the eye, this seems like nothing more complicated than self-promotion and block evasion. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right... it's not complicated (the A.G. Edwards IPs are at the very least clear meatpuppetry and quite possibly block evasion as well; the other IP editor quite likely knows Nysted), but given the fact that it is being claimed that I'm not objective and that I have some sort of axe to grind here I'd appreciate another admin taking a look and taking whatever action they feel is appropriate.--Isotope23 19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked WebmasterSD and given the IPs 24 hour blocks. They're all sockpuppets or meatpuppets of Nysted, and since he's been indef blocked already, this is block evasion. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick work. Thank you. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, good call. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, error please? Except for one critical error in your case and in your judgment call here: People from around the world are buying and listening to music created by Nysted and Walker (286,000 so far.) Now Nysted is releasing a second album (soon.) Will you continue to block evidence of notable people playing together on albums because you feel a need to do it "for the doing it sake?" You are all involved and all have distinct bias as to the way you think. Even in the face of reality, you choose to live in a vacuum. Block the world? Hardly. All of us, in the entertainment industry, have access to unlimited IP sites and proxies. It might be wise to negotiate as it says in the policy guidelines before congratulations are in order?

By the way? Nysted is in Aruba. I doubt if he has actually ever seen any of this. That is irony isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.123.21 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

If Nysted actually gets some press that indicates he's worth being included as a notable musician, as determined under the WP:MUSIC guidelines, then hey, good stuff. If he wants to get some press, he should play some gigs, get some reviews, and build interest that way. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

'Notability' is a guideline for the existence of an article, not the content of an article. I don't see a good reason to exclude this information (of course, with due weight... which would be very little... where is this info supposed to go?) — Demong talk 07:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.7.227 (talk • contribs) April 28, 2007 comments actually by 67.163.7.227 (talk · contribs)... not Demong (talk · contribs). Demong is not associated with this IP.--Isotope23 13:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the voluminous amount of discussion that has gone into determining that Nysted's work is not notable. All that putting a mention of Nysted in the Walker article would accomplish is giving him an additional Google hit. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Fox: This is about a discography for Walker's article. Please look at the smear you call voluminous. You chose to not look at reality. Every person that disagrees with you has been accused of being a sockpuppet and / or blocked. You still do not look at reality. Nysted's work is not only notable, Mr. Fox, but at 287,000, he is going to release a second album to a very receptive client base. You, frankly, do not know what you are talking about. You have tried and failed to stop fans from getting involved. Now there are articles popping up in other countries and other in Wikipedia spots. Please read what Demong said. That is policy. Your version of policy is censorship because you have a grudge or other motives. You can block our school or you can block our town, but there are thousands of fans that will keep coming back to ask why? Why are you changing Wikipedia poicy to stop Mr. Walker from having a discography in his article.

The anon IP who posted the last message has been blocked for 24 hours as a sock/meatpuppet of User:Lee Nysted. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Feeding Trolls via defcon Template

I am posting this here to get some community input on this. I know there is no oiffical policy preventing naming specific disruptive editors in the DEFCON meter, but I find it in bad taste. I have asked editors to not do so, however several of them believe it appropriate to add the specific vandals name to the highly visible DEFCON meter. My arguments against it are 1.) the defcon meter is highly visible, so chances the vandal will know he is getting attention are high. 2.) just egging the vandal on with "notoriety" will not encourage them to quit. I however am posting this question here to get some community input. If the community deems it appropriate to include specific vandal names in the template, then I will drop the matter. Until then, I believe it will cause more trouble than good. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in the spirit of WP:DENY. I mean, the best option would be to just delete the thing, but unfortunately people like it. – Steel 19:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I sort of like the Defcon template in general, but I agree, individual vandals should never be named on it. Dina 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chrislk02 ..denying them is the best answer and we dont want to motivate the vandals, the names of vandals shouldn't be added to the Defcon..--Cometstyles 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support the deletion of the DEFCON templates.↔NMajdan•talk 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am getting to that point. When it gets elevated to level 1 or 2 because of socks, or vandals, that just empowers them. However, it is highly debated and I doubt it would pass a TFD. All I am asking is for input on never including specific vandal names. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course we should never use vandal's names on the defcon template. It does more good then harm normally, but when you add in names that opens up a can of worms.--Wizardman 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support an MFD on the defcon templates, although I'm aware the likely result is "no consensus". But I think that we can muster a consensus that particular vandals should not be named. That can only make things worse. — coelacan — 19:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying we should add specific usernames to the defcon, however Real96 left a message their saying about disruptive socks causing trouble and it was then at level 2, that was appropriate but I dont think it is necessary to specify certain names.Tellyaddict 20:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Wdefcon}} getting deleted won't be happening (it was just speedily deleted and then restored, with a big brouhaha about it, the other day). I don't think that its mere existence goes against WP:DENY, but naming them most certainly does. 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, it shouldn't have been speedied. I don't think that precludes an MFD discussion though. — coelacan — 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's silly to send it through TfD again; it's already survived four times. As near as I can tell, arguments for its deletion range in variety from "I don't like it" to unfounded speculation that the vandals are actually coordinating their attacks because of the template. At most, we'll get another "no consensus" result. I think we've all got better things to do with our time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Chris. I've seen this in action recently with a high-profile sock and, yes, WP:DENY works. Naming them only empowers and encourages them - Alison ☺ 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to the talk page. We are NOT discussing this silly thing here. Unless you want an administrator to delete it, this has nothing to do with admins.--Doc^g 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be up for deleting the whole thing, but agree that naming individuals on it is definitely a bad idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that template talk:wdefcon is the place for this discussion now. ^☈coelacan 00:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The only reason I brought it up here is I had users question my serious requests that they not post vandal names on the thing. I wanted to make sure that i was making the right request, and wanted some input from other editors and administrators. I am fairly sure had I posted this on the defcon talk page I would have gotten minimal input from editors experienced in dealing with trolls. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, I agree. I was just noting that Doc had a good point; I and other editors had started to move the discussion toward deletion, but this really isn't the place for that. ··coelacan 07:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Whilst I appreciate the sentiment and support the removal of names from the template, I don't think half measures are appropriate here. Let's just delete the silly thing. It's an attractive nuisance and we're fools for hosting it and permitted it to be maintained. --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• This should be kept. As stated above, vandal user names should not be mentioned on defcon per WP:DENY. This has happened here. It was good faith, but it still shouldn't happen. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 21:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

misbehaving bot

User:VoABot II is accusing me of edits done by someone else. See User talk:Tauʻolunga and Box Fruit. This bot should be disabled until debugged. --Tauʻolunga 08:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the bot's last 50 edits, it seemed to be an isolated incident. Just delete the warning on the talk. You could ask Voice of All for some help, but disabling this bot will be premature. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just looking at one of the most recent contribs, and the bot seems to be doing something wrong...Maybe disabling it won't be a bad idea. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Another misbehaving bot: User:MessedRobot is putting Wikiproject Computing tags on the talk pages of various military-related articles. Someone left a message on the ownwer's talk page, but the bot is continuing, so I guess it's running unattended: Special:Contributions/MessedRobot. It doesn't have a big red stop button, should an admin block it? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:MessedRobot. Any other admin feel free to unblock once the problem is resovled. --Chris (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The revert on Aaron Gombar seems to be caused by the addition of a link to photobucket.com (see history, another bot reverted again). There are some other reverts that look a bit strange, but I don't know how the bot is supposed to work. Tizio 14:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

VoABot is not malfunctioning. In short, please don't link to Flickr. (Or Photobucket, or anything similar.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Box Fruit, the revert was correct, but the bot attributed the edit to the wrong user, not the one who added the link. I don't see a ground for a block so far. Tizio 15:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking into it :) Voice-of-All 15:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• About time. I remember telling you about this at least a month ago. --Action Jackson IV 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:The strokes

Can I get an outside opinion over at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/The_strokes. I'm looking for closure. Thanks. ccwaters 14:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

as am I. I'm getting tired of defending myself to one person, then having his cronies come in, and have to defend myself to them, etc The strokes 22:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Hyman

I have been watching the talk page for this person (a contentious subject due to an alleged misdemeanour of his, which he is in court for at the moment), and today some eight or nine entries were briefly on the talk page before being wiped. Now there is no trace of them in the history section even, so I cannot check up on what was written. Why has this happened? Is it usual to delete material even from the history section? Who authorises it? Why? Surely Wikipedia is not censored? I should add that there have been large-scale removals of material, both in the article and on the talk page, before today, but their traces are still in the history section. The entries made today have gone completely, with no trace. What is going on? Podder8 15:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the article, there appears to be a biographies of living people concern, and the edits have been wiped from the history because of that. Wikipedia is not censored, but it is not somewhere to abuse others. As for who does it- it is Stewards who have the oversight ability. J Milburn 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. Podder8 15:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Point of fact, not all people with oversight ability are stewards. But regardless, very few people are granted oversight. Natalie 19:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So how can I find out who took the decision to remove the material? I'm interested in accountability. I'm assume a decision wouldn't be taken unilaterally? And why has only some of the material been removed? A lot of what remains in the history sections is libelous, in my opinion. Podder8 20:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppet of banned editor

Resolved

 – blocked now - Alison ☺ 20:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

RocktheCasbah! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of community banned Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The edits are mostly re-doing the edits that his previous sockpuppet made on several articles. Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

216.194.2.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the same editor, please block. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup - confirmed. Blocked 48 hours and tagged as an RMS sock - Alison ☺ 23:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:199.80.65.3

Resolved

I am reporting this user due to a reverted edit that I saw in the Zimmermann Telegram article. When I looked at the users talk page, it appeared as though the user had multiple warnings for vandalism.

Seeing as I do not want the administrators to have to restrict editing on certain articles, I would like to ask if you can look into this issue and either ban this user from editing.

Thank you

Xenosphobos 21:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of those warnings were 3 months ago, and there have been some productive edits in the meantime. IP addresses can be reassigned to different people, and perhaps this one has. I have re-warned, and please report to WP:AIV if vandalism continues. —dgies^t_c 22:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Kd lvr and User:Kdkatpir2

Copied from User talk:Dgies

I and others are having problems with two users, User:Kd lvr and User:Kdkatpir2. These two user accounts were made within three hours of each other on September 18th, 2006 (so sockpuppetry is suspected) and the users are personal attacking, violation of WP:OWN, among other rules I am not aware of and causing a ton of problems on KDKA-TV and related pages. Some help is requested. Thanks...SVRTVDude ^(VT) 21:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a tricky situation. First, aside from a couple snarky comments, I'm not seeing anything that's an overt personal attack. WP:OWN is policy, but not directly something a user can be blocked for. I'm not seeing WP:3RR violations (but if they exist, please show me the diffs). As for sockpuppetry, while they are almost certainly related, it's hard to tell if they are the same person or just, say, coworkers at KDKA, which would be "meatpuppetry". Even then, aside from double-voting in AFDs, they're not doing major no-nos like block evasion or 3RR gaming. —dgies^t_c 22:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at my talk page, You will see some evidence. His "curtain is falling down". I suspect he will start to get sneaky and try to make it look like two people; so I suggestion action be taken. Thanks, --TREYWiki 02:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Unregistered user User:Mg5u misconduct

This user is evidently the subject of the article of likely non-notability Michael Gilson De Lemos. This user put back all the uncited and uncitable statements I removed [13] without discussion. He also removed the notability template. --Fahrenheit451 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't bring content disputes here. Please don't bring complaints about users who have one edit here. And definately please don't bring matters here when you haven't discussed the matter with the user on their talk page. This should be the point of last resort, not first. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not bring a content dispute here Finlay McWalter. Sorry you failed to understand what I stated. In any case, an admin is handling it. You need not worry yourself.--Fahrenheit451 23:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Johnston, Sr.

There seems to be a lot of trouble with Bruce johnston, sr. First off, the name isn't capitalized in the article's title. Second, the user seems to have put an infobox in which I can't seem to find, infobox:criminal. Any help?

--Ispy1981 22:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please ask general wikipedia questions on Wikipedia:Help desk, not here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review

I've blocked CINEGroup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) again. Welcome block review at above thread #Block_of_User:CINEGroup. (Just posting down here for greater visibility.) Natalie 23:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse the original one-week block, and the subsequent indefblock for death threats and threats to reveal users' personal information. Newyorkbrad 23:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

More like threats to pretend that being in the same general geographic area and within three years of age makes someone the same person. Given that I freely reveal my personal information, it's more like harrassment. Natalie 23:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Was about to go indef block myself for the not-so-subtle death threat, and apparently got beat to it. Endorse, obviously. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse that indefblock. I saw what they said. Not good :( - Alison ☺ 23:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse both blocks. Very sorry he screwed with you Natalie. I had logged off out of frustration with him and returned to this mess. Dina 23:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No worries - I completely understand the frustration. And it reminded me to go find my favorite Atticus Finch quote. Natalie 01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My patience is exhausted with this one. I think everybody's is. I'll go pick up the slack now. ;-) ··coelacan 23:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That user has been causing too much trouble. Canvassing, PA, edit warring, harassment...endorse this block.. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"several wikipedia editors have been murdered over the last few years"? I'd like to see some documentation for that. Corvus cornix 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that hundreds of thousands of people have edited Wikipedia over the last few years, I'd say it's pretty good odds that a few of them have been murdered. --Carnildo 01:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's possible, but the tone and context make it a veiled threat, I think. Natalie 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism from User:COFS

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

I'm serious, quit wasting our time here. Thread archived. Go find something else to do. ··coelacan 00:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved··coelacan 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

COFS moved my post in a discussion with him to the bottom of a talk page. [14] --Fahrenheit451 23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is even more of a spurious complaint than your last one. Please don't post this trivia on this page any more - if you continue, you risk being blocked for trolling. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree and suggest that you knock off bullying and threatening me.--Fahrenheit451 23:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The diff you have listed here is him inserting a comment of his own. Metros232 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you cited the wrong diff? There are no misdeeds in this edit; it is perfectly acceptable for someone to add a comment like this. —Centrx→talk • 23:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess the diff does not show exactly what he did. He put my comment below the discussion. You can see this by the date stamp on my signature.--Fahrenheit451 00:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• If something happened, I just fixed it. But, really, nothing happened. ··coelacan 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look here: [15] --Fahrenheit451 00:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This one does if you look at both: 1 [16] 2 [17] Anynobody 00:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted it. --Fahrenheit451 00:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a waste of everybody's time. The insertion might violate a minor rule of MOS, but it is not and never will be a cause for administrative actions. Next time, please see if you could fix it yourself before putting it here.--Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It looked like COFS took one of Fahrenheit451's comments and posted it under a new section, like this (he used ==section== format):

...

Take a look here: [18] --[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 00:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Anynobody 00:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Confessions Tour

Resolved

I would appreciate it if this could come under Administration control. This is continuously being amended/reverted to someones previous version that is neither on topic, is referenced, or is even true. As most of the reversals are from annonymous IP addesses, then this should possibly become requiring User log in to be able to edit. 60.234.242.196 00:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Listing this on WP:RFPP would generate a quicker response for semi-protections. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

have done thanks. can be removed from here 60.234.242.196 03:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:John Reaves

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

---

Resolved

 – - Ezeu 03:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me how to complain about an administrator? User:John Reaves just called a prime age young woman an "egg", when she reported a possilbe personal attack incident yesterday? Miaers 01:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is one place you can complain, but it helps to be specific--where did this incident occur? Can you supply a diff? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff. I don't think a normal person should behave this way. Miaers 01:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

ANI is not the Wikipedia Complaints Department. Such a place does not exist. I would go talk to him on his talk page first. Sean William 01:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The person (who I guess is a woman) is referring to the incident where she was insulted by Orangemike calling her "Humpty Dumpty". And John Reaves responded by saying she shouldn't be insulted, asking her "Are you an egg?" This person is being very disruptive now. JuJube 01:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rhetorical question. Natalie 01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

She's also violated 3RR on University of Wisconsin (disambiguation). Why she hasn't been blocked for at least some amount of time is boggling. :( JuJube 01:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I've never violated 3RR on that one. Isn't this page for administrators. I told me it is offensive, but he didn't even appologize. Is there a lead administrator here? Miaers 01:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The history of the article says otherwise. In any case, neither Orangemike nor John Reaves engaged in a personal attack against you and they're not required to apologize. You, on the other hand, probably should for wasting administrator's time with not one but two frivolous incident reports. JuJube 01:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) There is no lead admin here, and there is no need to apologize. If you're going to nitpick on everything that has been spoken to you, you won't be taken seriously. He is merely saying "are you an egg?" to show the absurdity of your reporting of the "Humpty Dumpty" thing, a lame attack should have been simply ignored as ridiculous. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec2) To some degree, I suppose you can find a "lead administrator" here, but I doubt he'd get involved here. I really don't see what's so tremendously uncivil about the comment. I don't think he meant to literally imply that we have an egg editing Wikipedia, more to get across that it's really not tremendously necessary to take great offense to every slightly out-of-sorts comment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I counted four reverts in less than 24 hours on that page, so I have blocked Miaers for 3RR. Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean William (talk • contribs)

She's wasting more time by claiming she wasn't warned for 3RR even though she was, by Orangemike, except she chose to ignore it because he supposedly called her Humpty Dumpty, a personal insult which was so horrible she chose to use it right back at him. JuJube 01:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is series of WP:POINT violations arising from a completely overheated dispute about some redirects connected with University of Wisconsin campuses and articles. See this AfD, the thread on my talk where I tried to talk the editor out of pursuing the AfD, the prior AfD and DRV, and even this arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Including this time, she's been blocked five times for 3RR. When you add it up with this nonsense, it suggests a problem case. She's probably going to go right back to wasting people's time after the block expires. JuJube 01:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone's opened a thread now on the community sanctions board. Newyorkbrad 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I opened the CN thread. I stumbled across Miaers earlier this week when they made a pointless RfC for University of Wisconsin - I warned them against disruptive behaviour after I read through the talk page. I found an afd yesterday for the related disambig page. This made my "spidersense" go off and I did some digging. Miaers has gamed the system here quite seriously - I am totally univolved with them bar my outside comment for the RfC and I consider their behaviour excessive, tendencious and highly disruptive--Cailil ^talk 02:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have appreciated if Humpty Dumpty, er, uh, Miaers has notified me of this ...John Reaves (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly would have left a note on your talk if this complaint were being taken seriously, but as it it is it's Miaers rather than you who has egg on her face. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You should have just posted that directly to Bad Jokes... —Centrx→talk • 02:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would have posted the yolk there, but I'm a little bit too yellow. Newyorkbrad 02:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, getting through the bad jokes.... Everyone agree that she is wasting our time? --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 02:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this should probably be closed. Of course, she'll probably make a new one when she's unblocked saying that Sean Williams called her a "block". JuJube 02:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

User:SPUJ

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by Lexicon. MaxSem 12:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked this user as a sockpuppet of User:Panairjdde, User:Panarjedde, User:Kwame Nkrumah or whoever is the original user. SPUJ is obviously a sock of the above banned users, as evidenced by several factors:

1. Obviously a sock of someone, as he showed up with full knowledge of Wikipedia
2. Fair (although not overwhelming) connection to Italy-related articles, as the above users have had (it has been established that the original user in question is from Italy)
3. Use of wildly different "origins"—Panarjedde was, well, I dunno what he was supposed to be (Indian?), Kwame was obviously of African origin, SPUJ is claiming to be Chinese—this is an obvious overcompensation to hide the fact that he's a sockpuppet
4. The most obvious factor, which immediately showed him to be a sock, is the mass deletion of "minor" features on football kit articles, which the blocked user is famous for
5. Finally, he responded to my talk page message to him with a comment that basically shouted "Hey, I don't know you, and anyone who knows me has had confrontations with me in the past, and I know I'd remember them." I've changed my user name since last being involved with him, however.

So this is just a note to all those who've been involved with this user, I know that at least User:Ryulong, User:Jayjg, User:Centrx and User:AnonEMouse have dealt with him in the past. Lexicon (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also this user's name is possibly intended to impersonate User:SPUI. —freak(talk) 20:16, Apr. 28, 2007 (UTC)

Fancruft issue again

A short while ago there was a discussion here concerning how to deal with the thousands of fancrufty articles on, for example, every episode (and character) of some minor children's television series. The suggestion was that the best approach was to turn them into reverts to a relevant list. Well, it's been tried. Soetimes it worked, but predictably it arouses tremendous ire and stubbornness on the part of the fans who write and maintain the articles. After my attempt to deal with a set of such episodes was blocked by the persistent reverting of one such fan, I bundled the episodes in an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man. I think that this is an important test case; if there's any hope of stemming the tsunami of trivial fancrufty articles, this is it. If you agree (or if you disagree), please join in the discussion. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly: Thanks for the link! Secondly, what you say is "cruft" others say is not... for example this, that article is truly shit, is unsourced, likely won't be expanded... and you know what it's "C.R.U.F.T", or is it? Think about this, long and hard. Matthew 16:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're hoping to actually setting this matter properly, for the whole class of episode articles you describe, AfD is a poor venue for the discussion, and I don't think will yield the result you desire. I see you're trying to make the discussion set a precedent ("Agreement on this will also have an effect on how we deal with thousands of other trivial, fancrufty articles, including similar case"). Firstly it'll be hard to say if a given person is expressing an opinion only about the specific article(s) under discussion, or whether they're agreeing with your proposed precedent too - so there will be endless debate about what this AfD really amounts to. Secondly, because this AfD attempts to define no testable criteria for which episodes should or should not have their own article, any precedent the AfD sets is impossible to interpret for some unrelated set of episode articles. And thirdly, because the discussion regards deletion of a specific article, it raises the hackles of those particularly in favour or opposed to those specific articles: so you don't get a calm and measured discussion. Surely it'd be much better, and far more definative, if those who're interested in this space hammer out a draft policy which sets some reasonably measurable benchmarks about what is and what isn't an article-worthy episode. You'll never get it nailed down to something completely straightforward, but surely something that matches the usefulness of, say, WP:MUSIC or WP:WEB is possible. If you're trying to make a policy that, as you say, covers "thousands" of articles, then it needs to go through a rather more deliberate process (that is, a WP:POLICY discussion) than just a single contentious AfD. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Just a note that these articles being deleted would be a minor dent in the total that have been saved to date (I've lost count). Matthew 17:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

One phrase that comes to mind is 'non-trivial coverage by multiple independent sources.' Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Mel Etitis would do far better to contribute to and use the relevant guidelines and discussion at WP:EPISODE and WP:TVE than to attempt to set a precedent. It's not as if this hasn't come up before. Phony Saint 17:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately no-one mentioned those pages the last time this came up. In fact, though, as they stand the two pages are pretty useless; they offer absolutely no notability guidelines at all, so far as I can see — so I take it that we have to use the general guidelines. Yes "non-trivial coverage by multiple independent sources" is useful; there's a vast amount of stuff about these series on the Web, but it's not non-trivial.

The example of the Music WikiProjects is, I'm afraid, depressing; they do nothing to stem the tide of articles on non-notable performers and recording.

Matthew's response (here and at the AfD) is a good example of the emotional, uncivil response that one has to deal with when daring to question the notability of this sort of article. I'll not respond further (except to say that he';s getting close to stalking my edits — he needs to stop that before it gets out of hand and becomes blockable). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently me and another editor are working on the articles in question. Another editor I've been talking to for suggestions suggest a new wiki for film. It would keep all of the TV show articles you consider "cruft" off the main wiki. Even that would take a lot of work transwiking all the pages. Heres an editors opinion on the matter "[13:37] Editor: can you imagine a mass exodus of popular culture editors, some of whom would turn to vandalizing just to "get back" at the wiki?" (yea i changed the name to keep their S/N out of the discussion). If we put all the information for each episode on the list of eps it would be gigantic. Many episodes contain production info and international info. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And most of that information is trivial and unecessary, so can be scrapped. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Peregrine Fisher and User:Matthew are attempting to vote stack the AfD by telling other users that this AfD will effect unrelated episode articles. (see contribs). This is downright misleading and disruptive, and if someone else could also leave them a note about this that would be appreciated. -- Ned Scott 18:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

These users were informing other episode pages about the debate because Mel originally was using it to set a precedent for all episodes which he deemed "cruft" --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work like that, and I shouldn't have to tell you that. Just because one set of articles gets deleted will not give the green light to an editor to automatically delete all episode articles without discussion. -- Ned Scott 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am just telling you what's going on. I suggested he get consensus to delete episodes before doing so and he went to AfD to set a precedent. I didn't suggest AfD, nor did I say AfD sets precedents, but users who wish to delete episodes can use this debate as a reason in other AfD's. Mel has since removed the part about this setting precedent from his statement, so editors can no longer post on unrelated episodes, but prior to that he was trying to set precedent. Not trying to discredit him just informing you. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing "vote stacking" with informing wikipedians about a situation that could affect alot of articles on wikipedia. dposse 19:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There's about a snowball's chance in hell of this AfD on that show setting a precedent for all episode articles. Even so, it's a bit of an insult to shows like Lost or House to say they're on the same level as "The Suite Life of Zack & Cody". This is just blindly defending any and all episode articles for fear of good episode articles taking a hit. If they wanted to leave a notice on all those talk pages then I would be fine with that, but such messages should be neutral in nature, instead of trying to support one side or the other. I do not object to leaving notice, just the way notice was given. -- Ned Scott 00:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You wish others to be neutral, yet you state that a Disney show is not "in the same level" as Lost or House? I submit that on wikipidia, all shows are on the same level, no matter our personal opinions on the content of the shows. But that's just my opinion. Please don't take my comment as a personal attack. I assure you, it's not. dposse 01:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Being neutral in a mass message or an RFC is one thing, and stating one's opinion in a particular discussion is another. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's ridiculous to assume that an attempt is being made to get a precedent to delete episode articles, at least for any series some deletion-happy individual thinks is 'non-notable' or 'minor' or 'crufty' - especially when the person AFD'ing them says they're doing so for that purpose ... Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That might have been what Mel was trying to do, but that's not how Wikipedia works, and something like that has about a snowball's chance in hell of happening. Part of his deletion motivation was misguided, but that's all. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• The word "cruft" is often relative. E.g. I have no interest in football, and to me most football news in newspapers is footballcruft to be skipped; but many others think otherwise. Anthony Appleyard 05:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ned, what is wrong with informing wikipedians of this discussion? This discussion could have a significant impact on wikipedia. What's wrong with having a fair discussion between wikipedians, some of whom may not even know this discussion exists unless someone tells them? That's all Matt was trying to do. If you disagree with the way he was doing it or the tone he was using, that's fine. You do it yourself, or tell us how you would like to inform wikipedians. But don't just stand there and let this discussion go on without some informed wikipedians knowing that it exists. Wikipedians put alot of hard work into the articles and it would be a shame if they weren't informed of a discussion that could have saved their work. Can you understand where i'm coming from? dposse 14:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing involves targetting people whom you think will support your point of view, rather than letting people know about a discussion in an even-handed way. My own view is that it was clear (especially given the scare tactics about how this would lead to all articles on all episodes being deleted) that people working on episodes of other series would be on Matthew's side, and that he targetted them for that reason. It was therefore canvassing, and not acceptable. It was, in fact, successful canvassing: the AfD discussion is full of people who are involved with articles on other series, and whose comments often make clear that their position has nothing to do with the actual AfD, but on its supposed effects on their own, unrelated articles. It would be nice to think that the closing admin would take that into account, but I'm not holding my breath. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Episode Debate

I think a few admins need to keep an eye on the episode debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man. It is getting way out of hand (as shown above). Too many editors are taking things too personal and insulting other users. User:Biotudor is harassing me on my talk page because I marked his !vote stating he has few edits outside of the AfD and he seems to think I have it out for him. It would be greatly appreciated if a few NPOV admins could monitor this and keep things civil. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note the thread above this, as well as #Fancruft issue again. Hrmm :\ -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Writer2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

His userpage and this edit are quite, erm, interesting. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a blocking, but I'm unsure about it. However, I've reverted said edit and deleted the userpage as G10. For non-admins: it previously consisted of an advertisement to write pages for money, including a description of his rates and how to pay him. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean G11? G10 is attack pages. ··coelacan 19:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Err, yeah. Whoops. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I read about the rates(when I welcomed him/her)..It was pretty high and the Irony is that she/he already has a customer..--Cometstyles 03:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wholly carp! Is this really happening? User talk:Gatorphat looks like they've transferred over $10,000 across paypal. Somebody's going to be very disappointed if the resulting article doesn't survive AfD. ··coelacan 05:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's Jacob Riis. That's already notable. I'm going to try to not be reactionary about this. ··coelacan 05:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the bet that they are the same person? No one in the world will pay 10,000 dollars for an article... Trying to make money out of Wikipedia? hmm... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 05:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Either they're trolling, or trying to drum up the person's business by making it look like there's some huge demand for it. I've warned him not to conduct business here, and I'll do an indef block if it continues. Jeez. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Consumed Crustacean- I think that would be the best course of action. On another note, I have come across this before- someone who wrote an article that was then deleted (this is ages ago, the AfD is here) and the user then e-mailed me for a long time, telling me about how they intended to pay someone to write an article for them. The whole situation was very, very odd. J Milburn 13:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

IP revert-warring like crazy, block requested

Resolved

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.87.53.154. That's 7 reverts in one day. 3RR, anyone? He's even been warned, though it's obviously someone logging out of their normal account to create havoc. Moreschi ^Talk 20:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours by Theresa knott. IrishGuy ^talk 20:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that I contend the block, but the 'other side' is not without fault either... It seems that Wikiproject Composers are trying to assert ownership over all composer articles. For example, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Lead_section... Instruction Creep anyone? --Edokter (Talk) 13:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. This is not a matter of policy. The consensus of those involved with these articles - that is, the people who actually write them - is not an unreasonable thing to respect. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 15:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see with these wikiprojects is that some try to enforce their consensus - as if it were policy - unto other editors. I mean, they practically prohibit the use of an infobox. That can't be right... --Edokter (Talk) 17:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

GreenJoe (talk · contribs)

This user is determined to get nonsense about the Beatles being "ordained ministers" into articles. He's been told to stop by at least 4 editors. His response is wikilawyering (warning others of 3RR, accusations of meatpuppetry, etc). Since I don't wish to give a wikilawyer more ammunition, would somebody else please review and if they deem it fit issue another warning or a block? --kingboyk 23:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

for now. --kingboyk 11:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Abusive and aggressive post

Please see [22]. Andy Mabbett 05:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed and i left a message on his talk page asking him not to do that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm his reply to me seems worrying. I think he is mucking about, but can't be sure. I'll watch him for a bit and urge others to do so as well. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist probs.

There seems to be something wrong with my watchlist at the moment. Everytime I go on it, this shows up. Anyone else have a similar thing happening or is this an isolated incident? --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It was just because someone added the reverse character to the Sandbox, which was in the edit summary for that diff. It is fixed now. —Centrx→talk • 07:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Wow - strange problem & a really nasty hack. User:ReverseMe added a reverse char to the edit summary they made to Wikipedia:Sandbox. Blocked for their troubles. Wow! - Alison ☺ 07:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird. What the heck is a reverse character? Answers on a postcard to avoid beans, if required. --YFB ¿ 08:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Given beans to fruit as requested. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Beans received with thanks. Very enlightening :-) --YFB ¿ 08:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a pretty nasty hack, and even worse when you find the ease in which it was created. The loophole needs to be fixed... On the plus side, it only works with Firefox and Opera, not IE. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it could be fixed, given that there are potentially legitimate uses of that feature. However, I wonder if what the display was doing was really in line with the specifications for the feature. Unicode says "All explicit directional embeddings and overrides are completely terminated at the end of each paragraph. Paragraph separators are not included in the embedding" [23], so in my understanding the edit should have affected the display only of a single paragraph. But that's probably an issue of browsers, not of the Wiki software. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Far as I recall, it's largely used for correctly rendering Hebrew and Arabic text when embedded in standard left -> right text, like English. But if it's 'leaking' past a paragraph, it's probably a bug in the browser render engine. Mayhem! - Alison ☺ 08:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Well, what to do? It's a legit character. Damn - I really want to talk about it here but have to hedge my words. I did a quick google and it turns out that many forums have coded in protection against this little nasty & that it's useful for reversing URLs in potential phishing scams, etc. Clever but wide open for exploitation. Ok - 'nuff said - Alison ☺ 08:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the type of Unicode typed in. And also, wiki formatting treats the coding and the watchlist in one single line, no spaces, which is the potential cause of this disaster. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this can beat the spam blacklist (I've tried) but we could be in for some tricky vandalism. I also tried it with my RC patrol feed but nothing happened. Not too sure about other anti-vandal programs. MER-C 12:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tuonela (talk · contribs)

Is this bot approved? It is editing rapidly.... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just read its userpage. It's being tested. Grandmasterka 10:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The userpage was created after I listed it here. Before a bot is run, it must be submitted to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, but there is no requests there. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah... It appears some good-faith editor is not aware of our bot policy. (The username doesn't include "bot" as well.) I'll block the bot, someone else notify its owner of our bot process. I'm going to bed in a minute. Grandmasterka 10:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've notified the user, and an admin in the bot approval group about this already. The matter will be sorted soon. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppetry by ChrisGriswold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As established in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChrisGriswold, ChrisGriswold has used Superburgh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Truth in Comedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the purpose of abusive sockpuppetry. While the sockpuppet accounts have been blocked, the placement of a block of an adequate length on ChrisGriswold's main account may be warranted, along with temporary desysopping to prevent ChrisGriswold from unblocking himself. John254 17:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I dropped a note to the ArbCom suggesting an arb urgently leave a "please explain" note - David Gerard 17:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Yuck, admin sockpuppeteering is always ugly. I suggest we hear from the ArbCom before doing any blocking or desysopping. (David already notified them, so it won't be long now) Sean William 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I already left a note on his talk page. I considered giving him a week long block for disruption when i blocked the socks but decided to wait for his reply first. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Note the userbox: "This experienced editor is seeking to adopt new users. " *cough* - David Gerard 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How disappointing. – Riana _ऋ 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Chris also deleted the user pages with the sock tags (though someone put them back now), that doesn't strike me as quite right. I hope he'll come to explain this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please respond at the checkuser talk page. I do not feel I did anything abusive, and I apologize if I have gone about this incorrectly, but I considered what the sockpuppet page said before even deciding to do anything like this. I have explained further there. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be getting worked out at the checkuser discussion page. The socking was ill-advised and perhaps somewhat abusive but I don't think a block against the main account is warranted under the circumstances, and preemptive desysopping would be ridiculous. 75.62.7.22 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I added some info on that page that illustrates some abuse via the sockpuppets. IrishGuy ^talk 18:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I was always a little suspicious of User:Superburgh... Grandmasterka 18:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A87 (talk · contribs)

This user was originally warned and then blocked about uploading non-tagged images as A67 (talk · contribs). They've just re-registered with a similar name and have continued, restoring images to articles which had been removed manually or by a bot. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive234#A67 .28talk .E2.80.A2 contribs.29

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should goto WP:SSP. Funpika 17:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ox cart man Actively stating vandalism intent on his user page.

Should I head down the corridor to WP:AIV ? Already vandalised some talk pages but not really sufficent warnings yet. However his "Vandalism Plans" header would seem to indicate a block asap. Pedro |  Chat  17:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Already blocked, as well as his 'kid' sockpuppet - Alison ☺ 17:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Just too quick. Thanks. Pedro |  Chat 

bluemarine (talk · contribs)

Has written autobiographical article (Matt Sanchez) and has deleted his talk page. Also uploading images without sources.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AfD, next door to your right, if you think the article is inappropriate. I'll issue a warning about the images. Sandstein 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs)

User has been continually uncivil and has been given several warnings. It's somewhat confusing as he has more than one username, although perhaps not dishonestly. See here. After I gave him several more warnings he made this comment attacking Myasuda on my archives (he thought it was my talk page:[24]). Quadzilla99 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• This whole page is kind of a disgrace — Talk:List of National Basketball Association top individual scoring season averages. Quadzilla99 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To be clear if you look through the contribs this is not a problem between two editors but a widespread problem, didn't want anyone to get the wrong idea by looking at just the above talk page. Quadzilla99 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Here's one from today user was told info should be included by 3-4 editors on Talk:LeBron James yet kept reverting it here's the last revert:[25] Quadzilla99 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Continued belligerence—directly stating he will revert consensus decisions:[26] Quadzilla99 23:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Page moves for royalty

Resolved

Lacrimosus (talk · contribs · count) has moved a considerable number of biographies for monarchs from e.g. Albert II of Belgium to Albert II of the Belgians. The naming conventions appear not to have been changed to that effect. I don't have the time now to restore this; in fact I won't be back until Monday. Errabee 13:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That is definitely incorrect. His title is officially still "King of the Belgians" - though since the last constitutional reform that has become unclear (some say the title has become "King of Belgium"), just like it is not sure wheter his grand-daughter will be crowned King or Queen. However, this "Albert of Belgium" happens to be his official name - contrary to what a lot of people think, it is not "Coburg". I am reverting. --Pan Gerwazy 18:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to undo the move from Napoleon III of France to Napoleon III, Emperor of the French. All others have been moved back to the original title. Errabee 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Errabee 23:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom Monaghan

I blocked User:72.198.121.115 for blp on Template:Dominionism to prevent him again adding Tom Monaghan to the list of 'Financiers of Dominionism' without sources to support that characterization. User:FeloniousMonk unblocked him, saying I was too involved in the editing to legitimately block, and claiming there were other sources to support including Monaghan.[27] None of the sources FeloniousMonk listed mention Monaghan, except for the passing mention in Rolling Stone. I maintain that Monaghan was included without adequate citation, that my block was appropriate, and that FeloniousMonk's unblock was unwise. I would appreciate a review and determination. If the consensus is that I was wrong, I'll leave the template and the subject to FeloniousMonk and others to work on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I support, of course. Morwen's recent post here says it best. The way this template is designed allows no possibility for NPOV to be maintained - no place to mention the fact that the accused do not self-identify with the term and no place to say that there are reliable sources with the opposing view that this term is being misapplied to many mainstream figures. - Merzbow 16:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom issued a block despite the fact that he had been edit-warring to remove content from the article - he used the excuse of BLP to remove well-sourced material about living people, and to remove information not related to living people. He used a block to advance an content dispute, in clear violation of the blocking policy. There are several independent sources which support the edit, so Tom's allegation that the edit violated BLP is not supported by the facts. Tom has misrepresented the sources - for example, saying "[no new sources have been provided"] despite the fact that additional sources had been provided. In addition, Tom has repeatedly abused admin tools on this issue, including the use of rollback to replace a protection template on an article which was not protected [28]. While BLP is an important policy, Tom is abusing it here to advance his position in a content dispute. 72.198.121.115 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison is doing the right thing here. That passing mention in Rolling Stone isn't adequate to add Monaghan to that template. The whole issue with him being an involved admin is irrelevant; he does not have to seek out another admin to enforce BLP. Frise 20:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There were two independent, reliable sources, so it wasn't a BLP issue. Tom was edit warring on the template, and used to block to further an edit war. It wasn't a BLP enforcement, it was simple edit-warring. Tom wasn't just removing living people, he was removing non-persons from the template (and justifying the removal through BLP). When someone is so involved in sterile edit-warring that they re-instate an expired page-protection template. There are two reliable sources for the information - it wasn't a BLP issue, it was Tom's attempt to suppress a POV with which he disagreed. 72.198.121.115 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a source that says Tom Monaghan gave a lot of money to Focus on the Family, and another one that says he gave a lot of money to Pat Buchanan's presidential compaign... so obviously, he is a financier of Dominionism...? I doubt that even you believe that those sources prove any such thing. Frjohnwhiteford 12:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is ridiculous... it's like labeling George Soros as a "Financier of Anti-Americanism" in an "Anti-Americanism" template because there was a National Review article that claimed he financed MoveOn, which The Weekly Standard claims to be anti-American. (And both of those are reliable sources in the same way that Rolling Stone, Harpers, and Salon are, but from the right instead of the left wing). It's an end-run around WP:NPOV (in general, and WP:BLP in this specific case). - Merzbow 03:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No special knowledge of this particular issue, but I can say that I've worked with Tom in articles (one in particular) where there was a huge amount of edit warring from an editor who was opposing Tom's edits — massive 3RR violations, and some confirmed sockpuppetry. This went on for several months, and throughout, Tom scrupulously refrained from anything that would give even the appearance of misuse of tools. He sometimes overlooked the multiple 3RR vios, and may have sometimes reported them, but he never acted on them. Nor did he use rollback in content disputes. I can't comment on whether he's right or wrong on sourcing in this case, as I haven't time to look it up, but I will say that unless he has completely changed his character in the last few months, it's inconceivable that he's blocking anyone to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Abusive admins generally follow a pattern of abuse; they don't just suddenly become abusive. Musical Linguist 20:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The way, the truth, and the light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For the last week, this user has been engaging in extensive edit warring on Homosexual agenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), single-handedly restoring variants of the unreferenced text

It is believed by some people that the gay agenda will lead to the acceptance of pederasty.

which has been removed by a number of different editors. A single user edit warring to add content being removed by a large number of users is disruptive; blocking The way, the truth, and the light may be necessary to prevent continued disruption. Note that this user has been informed of the existence of the three-revert rule [29], which states in relevant part that

The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

John254 19:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, he's being highly disruptive and annoying - we can't have people adding unsourced POV like this - but I don't think he's been warned. Moreschi ^Talk 19:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this user has received a plethora of warnings regarding his conduct on Homosexual agenda -- see [30] [31] [32] [33]. John254 19:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear they have to be aware of it. Anyway, last warning, from Nandesuk. ··coelacan 20:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't think to check the user-talk page history. Sorry. On the last warning, which sounds about right. I've tried to explain why his personal experience of homosexuality leading to pederasty doesn't matter. Moreschi ^Talk 20:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sweet Jesus. If calling everyone else socks and/or pro-gay activists is his idea of a "civil discussion", we have a major problem here...Moreschi ^Talk 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe I should reconsider my agreement to leave the subject of Casanova's sexuality to him then... Anyone know whether he's otherwise trustworthy? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This account was nearly blocked over the username. I can't say I'm surprised it's become a bit of a POV warrior. Is there any reason why we aren't just slapping a community indef on it? --kingboyk 23:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

They're moving slowly enough that, while highly offensive, it's not terrifically disruptive. If they keep it up too much longer, though... Georgewilliamherbert 02:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall seeing a opinionated-sounding name which didn't follow up with similarly opinionated edits. Allowing him to keep it sent the message that this sort of approach to Wikipedia is acceptable.Proabivouac 02:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Support username block, sheesh. 75.62.7.22 04:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I invite anyone thinking of blocking to spend some more time looking at this users overall contributions. While there's an obvious issue with the one topic area, they're also doing legit cleanup edits elsewhere, undoing vandalism and leaving appropriate warnings, and otherwise being constructive. This is clearly not acting like a single-purpose account. If a consensus develops on the username, they should be asked to change it, not blocked. As long as they continue to listen to appropriate warnings and engage on talk pages, the disruption seems fairly minimal. Georgewilliamherbert 18:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of AfD

Following from WP:AN/I#Fancruft issue again above, I believe that Mel Etitis and Malevious are using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man for dispute resolution and some sort of "setting precedent," and with Matthew's help in canvassing it's snowballing into something ugly. See #Unnecessary, User talk:Whiskey in the Jar#Your message, User talk:Mel Etitis#Suite Life, and User talk:Malevious#Mel Etitis. In short:

• Mel Etitis redirects episode articles to episode list per suggestion here at AN/I (it would be under Archive 228, but it doesn't seem to exist...)
• Whiskey in the Jar (who attempted to get the two to talk) reverts
• Mel Etitis reverts to redirects
• Malevious reverts to episode summaries
• Mel Etitis and Malevious talk and decide to use AfD for consensus
• Mel Etitis puts articles en masse up for AfD
• Matthew links to the AfD on a dozen talk pages of television shows

I am asking for someone to stop the AfD in progress and get the original two to follow dispute resolution, because I'd hate for either side to think they've won anything if the AfD officially closes with a result. Phony Saint 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD is a legitimate forum for this discussion. Mel Etitis recommends the deletion of 20+ episode articles, but instead of deleting them, he would redirect them to a parent article. Either way, the content is removed. Such a recommendation lies within the purview of AFD.

It's true that mediation could also resolve this question, so really there are two separate avenues of action, and Mel Etitis chose one of them. AFD allows for discussion by uninterested users, and I hope that the truth will emerge from that discussion. Note that I have no opinion on the substance of the matter. YechielMan 04:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just one correction to Phony Saint's accusations: I didn't discuss and decide with Malevious to put the articles up for AfD; I mentioned the possibility to Whiskey in the Jar, but it was my decision alone. Otherwise, I agree with YechielMan, obviously; this sort of question is precisely what AfDs are for. It's a real pity that Matthew and others have used dubious canvassing tactics, but that's also not unusual at AfDs I'm afraid, and not a reason to close them before they reach consensus. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:EPISODE, Mel Etitis is acting entirely correctly - if episodes don't have secondary sources they can be redirected without the requirement of going to AfD. Addhoc 12:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded like I was accusing you of anything, Mel Etitis. You originally chose to use AfD, and then Malevious decided that would be a good idea to settle the matter.

What was recommended by WP:EPISODE and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive228#Advice on set of articles was to redirect/merge them. The original parties involved couldn't decide (in the space of a day or so) whether to redirect or not, so it ended up in AfD. I don't see how that follows deletion policy at all, specifically #Merging and #Deletion discussion; since when does anyone delete an article to make it a redirect? If "merge"/"redirect" and "keep" were the only two outcomes desired, why involve "delete" at all? Phony Saint 01:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Codeplowed sockpuppets

An RFCU for Codeplowed has been completed and three sockpuppets confirmed. Those sockpuppets have been recently used on the very-heated Talk page of the DeVry University‎. You may recall seeing this Talk page discussed in various fora recently, including RFPP and the COI Noticeboard. I assert that the Codeplowed's use of sockpuppets to confuse the issues and "stack the deck" against other editors is unethical. I request that his or her sockpuppets be banned. I'd be happy to supply further evidence but I think even a quick glance at the contribution history of the confirmed sockpuppets makes my case quite strongly. --ElKevbo 16:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur, except for the request that he apologises which you put into the talk page - it would be nice but isn't required. x42bn6 Talk 17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Is anyone going to do anything about these abusive sockpuppets? Is there a more appropriate venue to discuss this or request action? --ElKevbo 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not so much of an incident but more long-term, you might want to consider WP:CN instead or something. Or just wait. x42bn6 Talk 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

CN's a waste of time. I guess those of us interested in the article will simply need to ensure that we take into account's Codeplowed's behavior and ensure new editors are made aware when Codeplowed abuses others using his or her sockpuppets (like yesterday and the day before. --ElKevbo 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done This was a straightforward case of confirmed sockpuppetry; I'm not sure why no-one acted on it before now. I have blocked the puppeteer and his IP for a month, and indefblocked his socks. Hesperian 01:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. A. Bambenek (4th nomination)

I closed this nomination as invalid; however, I think there's something very pointy going on with the nominator: Mattgladney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Someone want to take a look into it? Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious single purpose account. All he is doing it putting up articles for AfD that he believes are related to John Bambeck [34] [35] with extremely rude AfD reasoning that have nothing to do with guidelines. IrishGuy ^talk 19:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, WTF. Looks like the goal is to associate Bambeck's name with some rather nasty allegations. Can someone nip this in the bud? Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User blocked and rolled back, "AfD"s (including one for a redlink article) deleted. --kingboyk 19:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Games people play

Would some administrator look at this[36] and see if they can figure out what is going on? There is a group of articles about newscasters for a Pittsburg station up for deletion (check User:TREYWiki's Wikipedia contributions for more). However the AfDs seem to be guided by a group of children playing some Wikipedia weekend game, and they've branched out to other areas of Wikipedias. I don't have the time or the resources to look into this, but would appreciate if no more Wikipedia resources were spent by editors dealing with this. This probably requires one administrator with an hour to spare and the will to do whatever he/she thinks best. Thanks. KP Botany 19:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Fffffffff

Resolved

 – Sock blocked —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This user repeatedly vandalized Turkey, I am requesting for him/her to be blocked.--Lemonflash 19:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked. Vandalism reports should go to WP:AIV. Trebor 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock of User:Ararat arev and blocked by Zzuuzz. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Danny Daniel sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Ryulong. JuJube 23:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on contributions, Cansaland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a probable sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer Danny Daniel. One of the user's hoaxes included an article called Cartoon Idol (pun of Fairy Idol. Some of Danny Daniel's confirmed sockpuppets edited that page along with "The Fairly OddParents"), though it was deleted as non-notable web content. See User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel for information about Danny Daniel and his sockpuppets, which includes editing style/patterns, what articles his sockpuppets usually edit, and a list of sockpuppets. Squirepants101 19:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, he's definitely Danny Daniel. He added his signature "Kiyowood" crap to the Zatch Bell! article here. JuJube 22:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidential names - requesting an admin to look in

I am not a prior editor of this article, and have no personal interest in the outcome of this AFD, other than to speak up for fairness in the process. I came across this AFD and see that although the tag regarding the deletion nomination was placed on the page, there was no edit summary attached to it. So people who have this article on their watchlists would not have had any idea that there was a nomination for deletion, and therefore would not know that comments on it were possible. Furthermore, although there are a scattered few requests for citations in the article, there was no prior overall tagging as is suggested by WP:AFD ("Consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} instead"). I would agree that the article needs work - more citations, cleanup, removal of some POV commentary - but the fair thing would be for editors to be given a chance to do so as is usual procedure. I made these points at the AFD, but I think it's something that an administrator might want to look into. Tvoz |talk 20:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the claim here is correct. The period of the AFD should be timed from the time of the edit which has the summary mentioning the AFD, not the placement of the AFD tag. Od Mishehu 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Too late gn

Too late gn seems to be a single purpose account. He adds non-consensus information to Gene R. Nichol as well as blanks out talk pages, sections of College of William & Mary, and all warnings on his own talk page. This has been brought up before on the BLP noticeboard and at that time the page was protected. He has garnered enough warnings that if he does it again, it is blockable...but based on his single purpose it is obvious that he will continue. Should it be a 24 hour block, a one week block...indef? Any input would be appreciated. IrishGuy ^talk 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that Irish Guy holds himself to no standard and is quick to judge without facts. My contributions are documentable with citations. Irish Guy is unwilling to investigate my reports

Gene Nichol

Gene Nichol is not sufficiently noteworthy to have any material devoted to his name. I have posted true materials with citations and had the administration of the College of William & Mary vandalize the additions on a repeated basis. Do you have a double standard?

- Nichol attended Oklahoma State University, where he played second-string quarterback on its football team, and received his law degree in 1976 from the University of Texas, graduating Order of the Coif. He was the dean of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law from 1999 to 2005 dean of the University of Colorado Law School from 1988-1995, after which the ABA threatened to remove the school's ABA accredidation.[1] Both the University of Colorado and the University of North Carolina Law Schools suffered a major drop in their US News and World Report ratings while Nichol served as dean and neither have recovered to where they were when he arrived {http://prelawhandbook.com/law_school_rankings__1987_1999/edit + Nichol attended Oklahoma State University, where he played second-string quarterback on its football team, and received his law degree in 1976 from the University of Texas, graduating Order of the Coif. He was the dean of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law from 1999 to 2005 as well as dean of the University of Colorado Law School from 1988-1995. - (http://prelawhandbook.com/law_school_rankings__2000_present)

You threaten me, but do nothing to user Cka3n who deliberately removed substantiated facts from Gene Nichol's bio. Many of the alumni of the College of William & Mary think that Gene Nichol's measurable metrics of performance are abysmal. We think that he is not worthy of a page on Wikipedia.

The site has been repeated vandalized and politically spun by anonymous changes traceable to the administration of the College of William & Mary, biased and directed by Nichol. No one has sought to put a stop of this propoganda campaign by Professor Holmes and Nichol.. See entry on February 27, 2007 mad on behalf of Professor Holmes in the history log pasted below.

The facts are that both the University of Colorado and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill law school were so poorly managed by Nichol that due to lack of his ability to work with the state lagestures for funding, failure to be an effective fund raiser and failure to properly hire credible faculty and administer (all core responsibilities of a dean of a law school) both schoos underwent major drops in rankings by US News and World Report, documented by citations. Worse yet, Nichol left The University of Colorado of Law School in such bad financial and administrative condition, that the ABA threatened to pull it's ABA Accredidation.

Wikipedia should either unlock that Gene Nichol Page for editing and permit documentable facts to be added or Wikipedia should remove Gene Nichol's page and the Nichol Leadership comments in the William & Mary Page. You do not remove factual additions on other college presidents pages, even if negative. People are responsible for their performance, as is Nichol.

Personal tools —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Too late gn (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

   Since it looks like you might finally be willing to discuss your edits, there is an ANI section opened about this. IrishGuy talk 20:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Irish Guy,

I recommend that you review your own comments for bias. You should not have a double standard. In other words do not hold your self to no standard and then violate the principles of free speach and undo edits just because you do not agree with actual facts. That is engaging in replacement of facts with biased opinion and your comments demonstrate that your are quick to make judgments without sufficient facts. You know what is said about opinions..... Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Irishguy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Too late gn (talk • contribs)

The American laws of free speech have no bearing at all on Wikipedia. That being said, you have no leg to stand on about violating free speech when you are the one who continues to blank talk pages, blank article sections, blank your own talk page, etc. IrishGuy ^talk 21:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask why all this random stuff is here? Can I make some of it go away? I can't even see what the dispute is. Dina 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that I caught him blanking talk pages and articles. His talk page had been blanked as well when I went to warn him. A quick perusal of what he was blanking showed that this had been brought up before as I noted above. All the gibberish he quoted...I have no idea what it has to do with anything. I had nothing to do with any previous content dispute. IrishGuy ^talk 21:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on the fact that they are editing Gene R. Nichol, User:Too late gn should be blocked for an inappropriate User name. Corvus cornix 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. But I did block him for 31 hours to give him a chance to get his thought processes together. He was wildly ranting. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If they're editing the Gene R. Nichol page, then "Too late gn" is an attack. Corvus cornix 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. All the edits have been to that article or removing references to him from other articles. Even blanking a redirect. It is clearly an attack account. IrishGuy ^talk 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Especially since his own account above admits to such. He is making he claim that he represents either genuinely aggrieved (but uncited) alumni, or simply alumni with an axe to grind. His behavior and language make it the latter, and since his name is clearly indicative of Nichols (gn as initials), almost probably an attack, though 'too late' seems confusing. Is Nichols known for deciding things after they resolve themselves and taking credit? (standard IANaAdmin disclaimer)ThuranX 23:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Snickers 579 (talk · contribs)

This user is currently on a bit of a spree, would somebody like to go and block him? FreeMorpheme 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC) :User has no contribs - sure you typed the name correctly? Natalie 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Sure enough, and corrected before I finished typing. Natalie 21:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC) I went to block but another admin beat me to it. For future reference use WP:AIV for blatent vandals. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

All rolled back, blocked. Antandrus (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

COFS indef blocked

Given the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, I have indefinitely blocked COFS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and CSI LA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), because the CSI LA account was used for block evasion during COFS's past blocks. This does not mean that the blocks cannot ever be lifted, or even that the blocks should not be reduced immediately. I have no opinion about the appropriate block lengths. But I felt this was the necessary first step while discussion takes place about what exactly should happen in the long run. ··coelacan 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... both of those accounts were involved in the minor shitstorm over my week-long block of Misou (talk · contribs). AGF or RFCU, I'm so conflicted... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I kinda doubt Misou is the same person, but who knows. CSI LA stands for Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles. 75.62.7.22 04:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4

Funny old world isn't it? How one can be posting one moment, and they are gone the next. Obviously the going got tough! Giano 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yargh, at least post the right link.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why - have you made it blue? Giano 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted only after 24 hours. Didn't the page say we had 48 hours for certification? I've asked the deleter and he's checking. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 22:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the RfC. It was certified by multiple users. The deletion was out of process. That said, the claims made don't look terribly RfC worthy. Can we please get back to editing the encyclopedia? JoshuaZ 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, actually it isn't certified - the "certifiers" had not done the "tried and failed to resolve" step. They would at best be other people agreeing - David Gerard 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What about the talk page? --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 22:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I expect David Gerard deleted it by accident, it was him I assume? Giano 22:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I just restored it. IrishGuy ^talk 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No you didn't, I did! So far it has one certifier, who wants to delete it as some editors are using it as a bullying pileon, and four who claim to be certifying it but show no evidence of the having tried and failed to resolve step. Need one of those within 24 hours - David Gerard 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So tried and failed isn't warning the user about incivilty and having her ignoring it and removed it? (originally left on user's talk) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I restored the talk page, not the article itself. IrishGuy ^talk 22:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please, let's get back to editing the encyclopedia. Miaers would be proud of us right now. JuJube 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Agreed, let's get back to editing and administrating the encyclopedia. Nothing more to see here. --Iamunknown 05:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

164.107.223.217 (talk · contribs)

• This anonymous user has been voting in a lot of AfDs, voting "Keep" pretty much every time even in patently obvious delete cases. When I left him a message about it, his response suggested that he was voting "Keep" just to make a point about the evil deletionists who prey on hard-working Wikipedians. Beyond leaving comments making people aware of his voting pattern, I don't know what else to do, but this seems pretty disruptive to me. JuJube 00:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello! If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? If you notice, most of my edits are grammatical in nature, correcting typos and such. I do NOT just go to article for deletion discussions and run down the lists or something. I also should note that I'm currently using a university IP and so not all of the edits in the IPs history will be mine. If you would like, I'll voluntarily hold off from articles for deletion, but if you disagree with my side of things, then shouldn't we just discuss where we disagree? Finally, for what it's worth, I'm taking a break from Wikipedia and because I'm using a university IP, any edits on the next few hours or so are NOT from me the one who used the IP on this vote and I don't know if I'll happen to be on this particular IP again. So, I'm just letting you know that if you don't hear anything further from me and notice radiclally unrelated edits from this IP, that's why. So, good night! Take care, one of the many users of --164.107.223.217 00:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It does look like a bunch of reflexive "keep"s on ideological grounds [37]. I'm not JuJube but if your offer to hold off from AfD extends to requests other editors, I'd like to take you up on it. Wikipedia has consensus principles (e.g. notability, attribution, etc.) for when to keep or delete stuff and those principles reflect the community's choosing not to embrace the philosophy of inclusionism even though some individual editors might themselves be inclusionists (or similarly deletionists, etc.). Trying to push a particular such philosophy into one AfD after another in disregard of the consensus principles borders on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Instead you might like to participate in the talk pages for developing the principles and guidelines themselves. 75.62.7.22 06:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Serpent of evil river

I suspect that these accounts may sockpuppets of Serpent of evil river (talk · contribs) compare edit

• Areabuilt890 (talk · contribs · logs) similar edit
• 89.242.70.104 (talk · contribs) similar edit
• 89.242.170.167 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.164.70 (talk · contribs) similar edit
• 89.240.157.86 (talk · contribs) similar edit

The IP's all belong in the same range [38]. They revert to an earlier version to include the "fifth season," which does not exist, and changes the air dates of episodes. The IP edits also similarly remove the lead sentence, revert a correction to a wikilink ("The Last Starmakers" to "The Last of the Starmakers"), and an interwiki link.

Areabuilt890 is also recently created account and the first and only edit was to request edit protection on an earlier version that did not remove the lead sentence, but the correction to the wikilink and the interwiki link and also include the fifth season that dates the season as 2006. The fifth season does not exist and a few of the false episode titles can be found on this thread on tv.com forums where users make up their own episodes: [39] inluding "String Burn", "The Witch of the Paste", "Duck and cower", "Katz kokoa", "Freaky Fred-day", and "Being Muriel". Squids'and'Chips 01:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon/Gimmiet (indefblocked user) back again?

I've kept Otherkin watchlisted after the big Gabrielsimon/Gimmiet/Gavin the Chosen/etc dustup (all the same person) last year. He was indefinitely blocked, and I suspected that if he came back, it would only be a matter of time before he showed up there. This seems to have paid off, Karaveks_voice (talk · contribs) is very active there now, creating controversy, and editing in the same fashion as the indef blocked user. Additionally, that account was created the same day in March 2006 as when Gabrielsimon/Gimmiet/Gavin the Chosen was indefinitely blocked. This seems pretty clear to me, but I'd like a second set of eyes before blocking the user. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ye gods, that article looks like a mass of OR on a topic that has a very dubious claim to notability. Do you have some convenient links to get a bead on Gabrielsimon etc.? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No links right now, I don't have 'em handy and I'm now 95% confident that this is him. I'm going to go ahead and initiate the block, this user is creating a whole heck of grief (admittedly on an article that's pretty much an abortion, but still, it's affecting plenty of editors) and is obviously the person in question. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

207.207.127.254 keeps replacing own talk page

Within the past day, I've counted ten times that 207.207.127.254 has removed the content from User_talk:207.207.127.254. Xerxesnine 04:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that the content was replaced with things attacking admins, and there was also recently a fake barnstar for fighting administrator cruelty. -Amarkov moo! 04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected it for 2 days. Hopefully that will deal with the situation for now. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:CINEGroup

CINEGroup (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I just blocked him for 24 hours for WP:3RR violations on Walther P22. But as he has already accused me of being involved in the editing dispute (I am not) and wikistalking I thought I'd bring it here for review. The diffs for the 3RR violation are on his talk page. I'll be honest, this kid is getting on my last nerve. Dina 18:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ispy1981&diff=prev&oldid=112994770

BTW, that post was made by an anon user, who later went by 69.132.199.100 or CineWorld. Notice anything similar? Addendum: 69.132.199.100 was blocked for 6 months by NewYorkBrad. --Ispy1981 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Supporting the block and counting. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This dispute has since made it to my user talk page somehow, for any of you who are watching, you may want to weigh in there (I'm resigning myself to a few days of my usertalk page being a public forum for this incident).⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I was told this was here, you will see my ip address is not that ip address (69.132.199.100) or anywhere near it. Thanks though ISpy, i don't know what led you here other then the fact that you have added information to wikipedia articles before that I have reverted and it's been upheld by others. CINEGroup 04:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Say wha? I looked at your talk page. No one mentioned anything about this page on there. Also, which of my edits have you reverted. Or am I a sockpuppet, too?

--Ispy1981 05:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you don't know how to look at edits in wikipedia, and no, your not going to try and drag me into another edit war with you. CINEGroup 08:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

CINEGroup may be referring to Leebo's remark at User talk:CINEGroup, "I've asked for administrator assistance at WP:ANI in moving your talk page back to where it belongs." That says WP:ANI is here, though it doesn't mention this particular dispute. Note: given the accidental move of the page to Usertalk:CINEGroup, I think these may be the mistakes of a new user (account created 17 April 2007).

Apologies to CINEGroup, I have done some format-fixing on his reply above: (1) removed his full quote of Ispy1981's comment, since the original was already immediately above it; (2) removed the blank space preceding his reply, since that "coded" his text. Further indications of a new user. Please don't bite him. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Re CINEGroup's comment: "Another edit war"? Ben, he is making false accusations against me. I have never edit warred with this user, only the similarly named CineWorld. Unless there is something he'd like to tell us. I am trying to assume good faith here, but it's very hard given his actions, obviously reminiscent of the anon user I previously mentioned aka CineWorld. Perhaps also, he would like to answer the lesser charge of falsifying information on his userpage. I think this might be something to look at in the aftermath of the Essjay affair. In short, there is no CINEGroup East. A google search, a Yahoo search and a webcrawler search all turn up CINEGroup's user page. Perhaps he's using his userpage as a spider trap for his business, which I doubt has been involved in the projects he has mentioned. --Ispy1981 15:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's Look at some quotes here:
"Ben, he is making false accusations against me."
"Perhaps also, he would like to answer the lesser charge of falsifying information on his userpage."
"In short, there is no CINEGroup East."
"I doubt has been involved in the projects he has mentioned."

Just so you can see how just blatantly wrong you are: [40] , As far as my professional resume, I really think you are now going from just really pissed off wikipedia editor to a warring stalker. I wouldn't film your wedding if you were marrying Madonna CINEGroup 20:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, let's look at the facts. I looked at the link you provided. Nice dummy page. By that, I mean there's nothing there. Nothing to click on, no TMNT or National Geographic. I would think such a prestigious organization as you tout this to be would have that among its credits, or at least something other than what's there. I can buy a domain, put stock nature footage on it and some canned nature sounds and call it a website. Doesn't make it a real organization. I also highly doubt such an organization would use Domains by Proxy, Inc, which is notorious for its use among people who, for one reason or another, don't want their identities known. Professional businesses (like Disney, for example) list their parent company as the owner of the site, along with contact information. Furthermore, why aren't there any references to CINEGroup East being involved in these films, in papers, on the net, etc. In short, there is nothing there which bolsters your claim of this being a real organization. If it is, you might be in violation of WP:U as I doubt you speak for the whole company. --Ispy1981 22:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ISpy1981, I don't know nor do I care what issues you have had in the past with editors here, but your trying to drag me into a fight with you and it's not going to happen. Your writing style might be good enough to make "suggestive" remarks here, but It's not something I will be playing into. CINEGroup 22:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The website [41] was registered the same day CINEGroup put up his userpage, April 17th. The CINEgroup east organization doesn't appear to have existed before April 17th. IrishGuy ^talk 22:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out something that might not be obvious to some of the people here. Cine Group EAST. Perhaps theres a Cine Group West as well?

Also, btw, I know SEVERAL if not HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of businesses that exist in brick but have no web presense yet. This is now turning to wikistalking and this is where it gets sad. Editors come into wikipedia and sometimes they just dissapear for some unknown reason, known only to the media. CINEGroup 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is known to the media, it isn't unknown. If you are making a veiled threat about running to the media about your perceived abusive treatment on Wikipedia, that is something else entirely. IrishGuy ^talk 22:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"If it is known to the media, it isn't unknown. If you are making a veiled threat about running to the media about your perceived abusive treatment on Wikipedia, that is something else entirely. IrishGuy ^talk 22:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)"
WTF are you talking about ? CINEGroup 22:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am refering to your statement: Editors come into wikipedia and sometimes they just dissapear for some unknown reason, known only to the media.. IrishGuy ^talk 22:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see how any of this is relevant to the matter at hand, which is CINEGroup's edit warring and disruptive behavior. If he stops that, he can register as many websites as he wants as far as I'm concerned. Dina 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It is only relevnat as far as CINEGroup saying Ispy1981 was wrong about the organization not existing. It appears to have only existed for 11 days. IrishGuy ^talk 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dreamworks existed since 1995 but just opened up a website in 2003. CINEGroup 22:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:CINEGroup:With all due respect to User:Asams10, the notion of me being an "admin sock" (wha?) [42] of this editor (a self described "gun nut") is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard here. Please stop calling everyone you disagree with a sockpuppet. I would have blocked him for WP:3RR as well as you if he had violated it which he did not. (Goes off to vote for Deval Patrick again)Dina 15:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that saying 'It's no wonder that several wikipedia editors have been murdered over the last few years' [43] is quite clearly a veiled threat. Not to mention the various other rude statemtents in that particular edit. IrishGuy ^talk 23:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for a week for a variety of things, but the last straw was striking through other people's comments on this thread twice after I warned him not to. Natalie 23:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"I'm going to change my name to Cho soon and just settle this." Have we heard enough? This goes beyond new user learning curve, revert war, incivility, and veiled threat. --KSmrq^T 23:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel the same way. The user's response to my block was quite childish, to be quite honest. If this is how they deal with criticism and correction, I doubt they will be successful as a Wikipedia editor.

Since they're talk page was protected to prevent their harrassment of me, I'm going to disable my email for awhile. If someone wants to post the unblock mailing list address to them, please do (I can't remember it). Natalie 23:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Ignore me, I can't disable my email for other reasons. Natalie 23:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Due to this entirely unacceptable edit I have indefinitely blocked CINEGroup. No amount of good faith assuming makes that anything other than a very very thinly veiled threat. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the initial one-week block, as well as the subsequent indefblock by Finlay McWalter. This user's behavior under this username was unacceptable, and he has been linked to even more troublesome behavior under prior identities. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• This user is an obvious reincarnation - he was dishing out 3RR warnings on his first day. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Support block. This user defines "exhausting the patience of the community" in addition to exhausting the patience of this particular user. Cheers. Dina 23:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hallelujah! A word of caution: He will most certainly return, if he is not among us already--Ispy1981 07:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

From Thatcher131 to Mattisse - is this a fair AGF proposal? Request feedback please!

No further good can come from this; thus, archiving. --Iamunknown 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)