Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive335

Help on reporting to Checkuser

61.5.0.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked by vandalizing Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch and several articles about characters from Digimon. East718 (talk · contribs) suggested a checkuser for him because it seems to be a rangehopper, because I've also noticed similar vandal edits on Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch and other articles from the following: 61.5.68.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 61.5.68.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 61.5.0.16 (talk · contribs · 61.5.0.16 WHOIS), 61.5.68.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 61.94.40.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). How can I properly report to checkuser in this case because from I have gathered, one false move and I may be blocked (I said "may be" because I am not sure). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 05:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessary. They're all dynamic IP addresses from the same range; it's pretty clearly the same person making the edits from the behavior pattern you've explained. Checkuser compares the IP addresses of users in order to establish if they are the same person — this is already obvious, from the situtation here, and a checkuser would not help you. However, I would point out that blocking won't help much in this situation because of the dynamic IP problem. --Haemo 05:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The affected article has been protected. When an article is "under assault" from a hoard of different IPs, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP. Someguy1221 11:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

IP POV-pushing

Can another admin deal with this guy [1], I've reverted twice and refuse to edit war with him. POV pushing on related articles as well, ignored my talk page warnings. ~Eliz81^(C) 09:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved, blocked 24hrs for 3RR by User:Stormie (thanks!!) ~Eliz81^(C) 09:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his belligerent attitude and five reverts across two articles made it pretty clear that he needed a cooling-off period. The content he was removing was well sourced, the only POV complaint you could even attempt to raise would be on the grounds of Undue weight, which I would trivially reject on the basis that Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) dedicates far more space to praise for the soldiers commemorated there than to the resentment of those of the wartime generation. --Stormie 09:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The BetacommandBot Crisis.....turned up something interesting...

I've noticed that alot of the people crying to User talk:Betacommand have problems with their images that many don't see right away. Many have no rationale tags (Image:Shaw Communications logo.png, Image:Yoshi2-title.png, Image:STB-tvchannel-logo.jpg, etc.) And thats the first several images I checked when I started from recent-back. How would it be best to alert these folks about this mistake in a proper way (and not cause Betacommand anymore grief)? --293.xx.xxx.xx 11:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your complaint about some of these images. Image:STB-tvchannel-logo.jpg appears to be properly tagged and the user appeared to be warned about it. What's the problem? — Save_Us_229 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought Betacommandbot was designed specifically to do what you're asking about using community-designed template warnings. Seems the people (okay, person) noting their concerns on Betacommand's talk page are simply upset at him about the fact that his bot did exactly what it's supposed to do. Not sure it's something I would term a "crisis" :) --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 11:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you'd be right about Image:CatsRugbyClubLogo.png, an image I uploaded long long ago that BetaCommandBot mistakenly took as orphaned fair use. It wasn't orphaned, but it was missing a proper Fair Use rationale (since such things weren't really thought of three and a half years ago when I uploaded it). I have added one now. --Stormie 12:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it because it was incorrectly tagging used images as orphans. I have no objections to the bot adding the FUR needed tag on the next sweep. Will ^(talk) 12:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Afletch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Resolved

   – Vandal indef-blocked. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has posted a threat to kill two people on his userpage, see diff: [2], removed today by another editor. There are no constructive contributions from this account. Used today to create an attack page. Accurizer 13:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• This looks like a little ring of vandals who make little or no contribution to the encyclopedia. The threat is conditional and probably not meant to be taken seriously, but still unacceptable. Block the lot of them. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 13:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of wikipedia talk pages to prove a point.

The following user, Angelriver is using the following wikipedia talk pages to prove a point Talk:Kim Bauer, Talk:Kate Warner, Talk:Michelle Dessler, Talk:Sherry Palmer, Talk:Audrey Raines, Talk:Tony Almeida and Talk:Curtis Manning. This is by posting identical information on each page which is not suited for an article talk page and should either be not posted at all, whith the sentiment posted on the correct user talk page or posted on just the user talk page.--Lucy-marie 13:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the comments from all the talk pages and also removed the merger tags which appear to have no community support. That way everyone is happy. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

John Dandola

Biographical article blanked by JohnDandola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with edit summary "Removed by subject due to vandalism & harassment. Do not repost without written permission verified thru subject's web site. Wikipedia notified." See diff: [3] Accurizer 13:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Even original article lacks assertion of notability with possible breaches WP:COI. PROD'd. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User blanking talk page content.

Resolved

 – 48 hour block

User:Ankithreya is blankingtalk page sections. despite two warnigns, with instructions about how to create new sections, [4] and [5], the editor continues to blank talk pages sections, as seen here, and here. the user has been made aware of what they are doing, but continue to do wrong. I suggest a short block to prevent further page disruptions. I will revert out the b lanking done in the last two examples. ThuranX 14:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

48 hour block. Clearly warned and continued blankings. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia issues on South Park articles

Imaginationland, Imaginationland Episode II and Imaginationland Episode III are getting out of hand. Each episode features many references to characters, so massive lists are on the articles. Anytime they get removed, they are re-added for no good reason. A poll is on the talk page: which is a joke, and basically full of editors that don't know policies on trivia and cluttered lists. Can anyone help out? RobJ1981 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The sections on "allusions" are valid, even if the content will need to be trimmed. The charcters lists should not be included and I have removed them. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to blank the "allusions" sections and leave an HTML comment about sourcing, though I expect to be reverted by cruft-pushin fanatics... RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The sections on allusions aren't valid. What sources are they citing? Someone sitting down, watching the episode and drawing his or her own logical conclusions is original research. Articles need to site secondary sources. A Train^talk 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As predicted: they were re-added back. However, it was only on Imaginationland so far. What else can we do about this? I requested page protection the other day, but it was declined. These fanatics simply wont stop, unlesss something harsh is done in my view. RobJ1981 19:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the proactive step of removing the allusions section to the article Discussion page, with a caveat that once reliably and notably sourced, they can be re-added. Anyone can revert additions of uncited allusions and refer the contributor to the discussion page, where such debate really belongs. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As an update: the page is protected now. Hopefully this can be resolved. But I can imagine people will use the same old "the talk page consensus" as an excuse for listing all that cluttered fancruft trivia. RobJ1981 20:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Roadcrusher Socks

Resolved

 – Socks and puppetmaster indefinitely blocked (see CheckUser request). Kelvinc 00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser confirms two new socks of Roadcrusher, who often uploads copyvios. Since Roadcrusher had previously been blocked for socks, I advise blocking socks User talk:Bothtones7 and User talk:Soondesk6 and requesting that Roadcrusher go back to using his original account.

Because there was a notable break in time between the last block of a suspected Roadcrusher sock and the addition of these socks (which can be considered a time out, I suppose), and that Soondesk6 has shown to be less rampant with the copyvios than previous socks, I am not opposed to lighter measures than blanket blocking, but I leave final decision to admins' discretion. Kelvinc 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Seicer

Every edit I make User:Seicer has to change it. He constantly keeps bothering and intimidating me. He acts like he is god. Seicer has constantly been in numerous disputes with other users. It must stop --Jdlddw 23:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears this dispute is over this I presume. I reviewed the contents of your talk page (which you happened to remove) and it appears he was not intimidating, bothering, or trying to act like a God as you claim. I would suggest talking to the editor in a civil manner about what his concerns are on the article and why he continues to make changes, and if you two aren't able to settle it then, then please come back here with diffs after making an attempt at trying to figure what the problem is and minus the uncivil and near personal attacks attitude of yours. — Save_Us_229 23:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is a the proper avenue for conflicts such as this. This noticeboard is not as well suited for mediation. — Satori Son 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Jdlddw's last edit to South Charleston, West Virginia, and he had changed "Kanawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority" to Transit authority. Since the KRT website says Transportation I am drawn to wonder how accurate the rest of the edits were. A quick look at [6] suggests that personal opinion salted with links of non-obvious merit may well be the problem here. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jdlddw, you should leave a notice on my talk page if you open up an ANI case about me. I only found out because I keep this page watched. I don't revert all of your edits, only edits that are factually incorrect or where inappropriate page moves. And please don't delete other user's comments on people's talk pages. Regarding edits of yours that I _did_ revert, which were statistically few to the amount of edits you _do_ have,

* [7] Sorry, your page moves at Yeager Airport and Tri-State Airport were made without consensus were reverted because they are factually incorrect. You cited no source for your change and all the sources that are currently provided state otherwise.

* [8] This edit on South Charleston, West Virginia is more appropriate per WP:MOS, removes dead/duplicate links, removes personal opinion and original research and is structured correctly per WP:USCITY.

A warning is not intimidation, and you should use that as a method to edit correctly on Wikipedia. Gain consensus on controversial edits or page moves and be bold in editing but ensure that it is well within appropriate boundaries. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also filed at ANB. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Unsourced Original Research to Jim Kelly article

T-rex is currently reverting any attempts to removed the unsourced statement "Kelly is considered one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the NFL and possibly the best quarterback to line up under center in the short history of the USFL." He has reverted it 3 times [9][10][11] after it was removed on the basis that it violates WP:BLP, and refuses to add citations when requested by another editor on his talk page. He instead defends his actions by accusing the other editor of "having a problem with Kelly" [12]. I've not gotten involved in this debate yet as it is beginning to border on incivility, however I'm disturbed at T-rex's loose interpretations of Wikpedia's Biographies of living persons policy, and the fact that he is resorting to edit warring to include this material without attempting to reach a consensus. I believe that administrator involvement might be necessary.--Quartet 06:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can call it a BLP violation, unless its untruth would make it derrogatory towards Jim Kelly. In any event, a subjective superlative claim is inherently POV and requires a source. Someguy1221 11:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think fans of Steve Young would disagree with that assertion.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 00:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. As per WP:BLP, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles". How T-rex can think that adding this info without a source is fine, when other well-refenced articles like the article for Joe Montana exist is beyond me. The Montana article is how it should be done - the Jim Kelly article with T-rex's edit is how it shouldn't be done. --Quartet 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious edits by User:Maneisis

I've just finished cleaning up dozens of links that User:Maneisis has added to his freewebs website TMM (Music & Movies) (also CSD A7 deleted) and started digging a bit deeper into his other edits. And I'm suspicious that there is some dubious spamming going on here regarding Martin Hernandez. Now, Hernandez is a Mexican actor who appeared in The Devil's Backbone and a couple of short flicks according to IMDb ([13]). I can't find any reliable reference anywhere on the net as to him having a musical career, but see Martin Hernandez (with it's MySpace link to a totally different Martin), Martin (album), Faithful (Martin Hernandez Song) (with it's apparently completely fictional claims of top 10 charting in Mexico and New Zealand), crudely photoshopped album covers Image:Martin album Cover.PNG, Image:U.K single Faithful.GIF..

Looking over User talk:Maneisis reveals a long history of other articles being deleted as hoaxes, as well as many non-free image deletions. Frankly, I'm inclined to just undo every edit he's ever made, but thought I should run this by WP:AN first. --Stormie 07:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Another: see deleted history of Image:Hola Magazine.PNG for another poorly photoshopped fake image that was placed on the article on ¡Hola! magazine. --Stormie 07:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, see edits from 24.205.190.77, appears to be the same editor logged out. Also adding very suspicious claims on Martin Hernandez related topics: [14] - claims an award nomination at the 2007 ALMA Awards, no mention whatsoever on that organization's nominees list ([15]); claims a Best Supporting Actor award at the Ariel Award in 2005, not true according to that organization's winners list ([16], Spanish, can translate via Google). --Stormie 07:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Still more: Everytime (film) - Martin Hernandez's directing debut, "will be released in 2008". "Official site" is a blank page at freewebs.com. Poster Image:Everytime Poster.JPG is another terrible photoshopping with the same font as the other fakes. Claims to be copyright Fox Atomic, of course their site makes no mention of any such film. --Stormie 08:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

one of his first edits, to One True Thing, claims Ebert gave the film 4 stars and called it "a movie of intense fascination", searching rogerebert.com finds that he gave it three stars and said no such thing [17]. --Stormie 08:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Violanchelo appears to be a real film, but not starring Martin Hernandez. Image:Violanchelo scene.JPG another terrible fake. The claimed source [18] is an article about the production of Violanchelo but no mention of Hernandez and no sign of the "poster". --Stormie 08:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• reading between the lines it looks like IMDb may also have been subject to the same hoaxes. As it happens the majority of the Martin Hernandez article seems to be a copyvio from his, apparently only, fan. I've tagged it for a speedy. Putting WP:AGF to one side temporarily this appears to be the product of a young Walter Mitty using WP, IMDb and YouTube to promulgate a hoax. --WebHamster 11:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• I did wonder that. I'm not really familiar with how the IMDb handles contributions but I don't believe they'd be too rigorous about fact-checking someone's "helpful" addition of information. --Stormie 12:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I deleted Martin Hernandez (CSD G12/A7/G4) What to do with the rest? — Edokter • Talk • 12:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to leave them overnight and then go on a massive cleanup in the morning. ;-) --Stormie 13:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put the album, single and film up for AfD. I've removed the mentions of Hernandez from the various articles mentioned above. --WebHamster 13:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the album and the song as violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have deleted them as patent nonsense. Anyway, I deleted the supposed album covers. — Edokter • Talk • 20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK further deletions from me:

• Image:Stages special edition.JPG
• Image:Stages.JPG
• Image:Stages poster.JPG
• Stages: Three Days in Mexico
• Cinanima Awards
• Image:Sincronizaso Soundtrack.JPG
• Image:Violanchelo scene.JPG
• Image:Nado.JPG
• 2005 Cinanima Awards
• Taira Court
• Nado sincronizado
• No me toques
• Template:Martin Hernandez
• Wanted (2009 film)
• Ugly Nights

Some of these may be real (e.g. I think Stages: Three Days in Mexico was a real documentary), but everything in them was unsourced content added by User:Maneisis, so frankly, I think it's best if they're deleted, someone can recreate them with proper sources.

By the way, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Hernandez and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Hernandez (second nomination), these hoaxes may go back even further than I thought. Currently investigating the contributions of User:Written92, who appears to be the same person, hoax edits going waaay back on the same obsessions: e.g. [19], created previous version of Martin Hernandez.

Also User:Director and writter, User:Homie 01, User:Oops05, User:Actor34.. --Stormie 00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Freyabigg is making legal threats on Naruto kages

Resolved

Freyabigg created the Naruto kages article. This article has been tagged for speedy deletion by Whitstable. After the tagging, Freyabigg added a line at the bottom of the article. It reads: Quote:

If you want to delete it then it's your loss and I WILL sue. :P:@

The user then went ahead and deleted the SD tag.

User Doe _☻T ^☼C 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

They have also added on the talkpage (with a {{hangon}} already in place for those who are CSD-tagging)

...IF YOU DELETE IT I WILL TRACK YOU DOWN AND SUE YOU!!

Please block post-haste THEN delete the article; there's no place for this nonsense in Wikipedia. NF24^{(radio me!)} 17:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. I'll leave handing the pages in question to another admin. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, if he does take back the legal threat, then he gets unblocked, right? Just wondering. -Goodshoped 17:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what WP:LEGAL (stupidly, in my opinion) says. Clearly we care much more for mollycoddling vandals and aggressive bullies than we do for protecting ordinary Wikipedians going about their normal cleanup duties. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Making legal threats and vandalism are two different things, though. Any user who makes any legal threat on the website, no matter how solid their contributions are, is blocked until they withdraw the threat. The whole purpose of forbidding legal threats is to prevent the chilling effect they can cause, which is theoretically accomplished by the user rescinding their threat. Someone who is blocked for vandalism who has also made a legal threat doesn't have to be unblocked if they withdraw the threat. They were blocked for vandalism, so the block for vandalism can stay. Natalie 23:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved; user blocked by Finlay McWalter; I have deleted the page and its talk page. -- Infrogmation 18:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

MiszaBot

Resolved

The MiszaBot at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leranedo used to work but now it does not. Looking for solutions. Thanks.Leranedo 19:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you wasting our time? There is no reference to MiszaBot on your talk page that I can see. Hu 20:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hu, check the edit pane, there is a template there. Thanks, Nathan 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Leranedo means that the archiving function on his talk page by MiszaBot has stopped. Spebi 21:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Leranedo, I did not see anything wrong with the template. Ask User talk:Misza13 for help, that is the bot operator. Misza has always been helpful to me in the past. Regards, Nathan 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Firstwind

Following a checkuser request that turned out positive at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Firstwind we now know that User:Firstwind is the recepient of 15 warnings, the last one on Nov 23rd either for vandlism or spamming. Would an admin review the whole case and see if a temp block or a ban is warranted? On a side note, the vandal keeps a "RC Patrol" userbox on his page but has never done any RC patrolling, I doubt that anything is possible to prevent this, however if you know a way... Thanks. Mthibault 19:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of User Boxes on my page for things I don't currently have time to do. Perhaps a request that if he doesn't intend to do it, the box should go until he does? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is really secondary. The main issues are the checkuser and the warnings. This RC patrol thing is just one of his/her provocations because he/she bullied several people User:Ground_Zero, User:Schcambo and myself by putting fake vandalism warnings on their talk page after receiving one. But this is really not an important issue. Would an admin please review the case and make a decision? Thanks. Mthibault 20:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:T-rex at Jim Kelly

There is an above thread on this, but I wanted to bring more attention to the matter. T-rex (talk · contribs) apparently beleives that calling Jim Kelly "one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the NFL and possibly the best quarterback to line up under center in the short history of the USFL" [20] doesn't require any citation. The reason I'm coming here and not dispute resolution is that I consider this a trivial addition of unsourced personal opinion, which if T-rex weren't a longstanding contributor, I'd mass revert and report to AIV. I was hoping if maybe more people tried to get it through him that opinionated claims such as these always require a citation, we could avoid an unecessary revert-war. I tried myself, but upon seeing his response, I'm not sure I can try again and maintain my sanity. Someguy1221 21:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought of assuming good faith, first? Maxim_(talk) 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. I'm not sure what I said that might indicate otherwise. Assuming he's acting in good faith and assuming he's acting in accordance with policy are utterly different matters. Someguy1221 23:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

T-rex (talk · contribs) is not assuming good faith in this issue - jumping all over Yankees76 after Yankees76 politely used a 1st level template warning about adding unsourced information to the article.[21] [22]

Edits like this are the types of edits from cocky long-term users that deter newer editors from constructively contributing to this project. Long time editor or not, Wikipedia policies are not open to different interpretations by how long you've been editing the project. Adding unsourced original research to biographies of living persons is not conistant with Wikipedia policies regardless of how long you've been a registered user. --Quartet 01:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and The Elite Hills

Resolved

 – Articles and images deleted. Sockpuppet blocked. -- Gogo Dodo 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 is a rather prolific sockpuppeteer with a fanatical devotion to Anaheim Hills. After being banned by the ArbCom, he continued to return every few weeks to insert his original research. Back in July, he created an article called The Elite Hills full of the same original research that has been deleted twice, if I'm not mistaken. Well he's back with another new sock Edward1212 who he seems to be using in conjunction with an IP address of 75.47.171.152. I've tagged his article of The Elite Hills (Orange County) as a speedy candidate (as well as some images he uploaded), and another editor has reverted most of his additions to cities in the OC. Could someone block the latest sock and delete the articles? AniMate 21:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also now added to WP:PT. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. AniMate 22:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange vandalism

Take a look at this. Not sure what he is up to, but if you go to the Image:Penisfrenulum.jpg page you will see that there are many pages linking to it that are not appropriate. The trouble is, since you can't actually see the image, and firefox will no longer allow me to search within the edit box I'm not sure about how to find it. Can anyone help? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the list of articles a common denominator is they all appear to have the same template on them. I'm going to add it here as a test.

Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"...and firefox will no longer allow me to search within the edit box"? Why not? Mine does, and it's (I hope) latest release. 2.0.0.11 on windowsXP. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Pretty sure it used to, then it stopped. I'm assuming it was when I upgraded.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK so I add it here, but this page doesn't get added to the list of pages linking to the penis pic, so i remove the {{recentism}} tag from one of the articles and it dissapears from the list. Plus I can't find any reference to the penis photo on the template page itself. What's going on? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The image links need to be purged. I can't seem to be able to do it though. Woodym555 23:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what we need to do. The image was added to the template but has since been removed. We need to make a small noN edit to each of the articles that still link to it because of the recentism template. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

All done! I've seen this vandal before so please keep an eye out for this type of vandalism. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to indefinitely semi-protect these templates? I can't imagine they need to be edited all that often, and since they're widely used it seems like the risk of vandalism outweighs whatever edits really need to be made. Natalie 23:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's probably a sensible idea. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The image in question has been added to the "bad list" (appears now only on 2 pages). Recentism template has been semi-protected. Not enough history to warrant more at this time. SkierRMH (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The image has now been added to MediaWiki:Bad image list as well, I got edit conflicted adding it to it!! Woodym555 23:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that list is there always seems to be plenty of images on commons that a potential vandal could use. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It also doesn't prevent the interesting vandalism I saw on Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis, which redirected that page to a picture of a penis. Preventing vandalism on Wikipedia seems akin to attempting to prevent shoplifting from a retail store - the only reasonable expectation is to reduce the level, rather than prevent entirely. Natalie 23:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We can't prevent it. But we can revert it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

True, something about putting finger in hole in dam. ;) I also agree that we can't cover all images on the list. Incidentally, would a vandal be able to add a redirect to an image on the bad list, and would the software allow it? Woodym555 00:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the software does allow it. The particular image that the page redirected to was already on the bad image list, as far as I can tell, which maybe why they chose redirection instead of just replacing the article with the image. It was quite clever, I must say. Natalie 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Would have posted here earlier, but the phone rang... After I saw the post here about the vandalism, but before the suggestion was made about semi-protecting the templates involved ({{recentism}} and {{recent death}}) I had fully protected both for a week - just in case the vandal had created some other sleeper accounts today, as I saw Theresa Knott had blocked the user involved saying "returning sock". Quite where one draws the line about indef-semi-protecting such templates, I don't know: neither are currently used on more than 50 pages, which isn't many compared to other permanently protected templates. Having said that, any other admin is entirely welcome to rejig the protection levels/periods on these templates without further reference to me, using the not unreasonable assumption that other admins are much more likely to have a better idea of the nuances of protection policy than me! Bencherlite^Talk 00:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin AfD close needs some cleaning up

Resolved

 – AfD closed

Would an administrator please swing over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans-bashing and give it a proper close. Thanks, ➪HiDrNick! 23:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD reopened for the time being. —Kurykh 23:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've looked it over and closed it again, ironically with a similar outcome to that performed by the non-admin (who really shouldn't have closed it per WP:AFD). Of course, DRV is always available for anyone sufficiently unimpressed by the outcome. BLACKKITE 00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, I closed the AfD. It met its time requirement and the issues raised about the article were proven as invalid. My close was as Keep And Cleanup per Wikipedia:Deletion process which states, "The template {{cleanup-afd}} is available for discussions that close as KEEP AND CLEANUP. To use, simply add the template (without subst:) to the kept article.", which I did. My original close rationale is at this edit. So what did I do wrong? Just curious for future improvement of my own editing on WP. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 01:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A good rule to follow: unless the consensus on an AFD is blindingly obvious and unchallenged, let an admin take the heat for making "the wrong decision." ;-) Someguy1221 01:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) When you closed the debate, you ended up injecting your opinion into the debate. Your closure did not analyze the debate, but rather was replaced with your opinion, contrary to what AfD is about. The same section you linked says "Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results." Closing against consensus or any controversial/ambiguous debate takes a detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and is considered poor form and "out-of-process" for a non-admin who does close it under these circumstances. In practice, non-admin closures are only accepted if the consensus is unambiguous keep. —Kurykh 01:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd hardly say I injected my own opinion. I addressed the concerns of the AfD nominator and made sure to point out in my close rationale how they were either addressed or disspelled which therefore made the redirect/merge "votes" (even though it's not a vote) without merit as they didn't apply to policy and that simply deleting an article because it needs clean-up is a no-no according to our very own AfD policies. I guess I'm just not seeing how I missed or did anything wrong as I was meticulous in following non-admin AfD close procedures and went to much greater details of my reasoning than most admins do. I do thank you for offering feedback. I'm sure it will come into play in my future editing. -- ALLSTARecho 02:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem: you're not supposed to address concerns to the nominator if you're going to close the discussion. If you're going to do that, add your opinion in the debate. The closing admin (sometimes non-admin) is supposed to act as an impartial [apathetic] moderator of the discussion. But I had to say that you are remain composed about it (these situations tend to inflame into revert wars) and we thank you for your grace and tact. —Kurykh 02:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:AFD says "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator"; this one was ambiguous, because the result did not reflect the actual balance of opinion on the AfD, even though that opinion was given on a previous version of the article. As above, though, thanks for asking for clarification in a civil manner. BLACKKITE 02:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by IP on contraceptive pill article

Resolved

The IP 71.123.17.215 was blocked for 24 hours starting 06:31, 1 December 2007 for a 3RR violation on the article combined oral contraceptive pill. The same content is now being added to the article by 132.236.120.83 (diff from 22:34, 1 December 2007). The type of additions made by these IPs, persistence of the addition, and refusal to engage on the talk page are very similar to a previous content dispute in that article: Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill/Archive 1#Percy Julian.

Is there any way to restrict this person from editing? Lyrl^Talk _C 00:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is now sprotected for one week. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

ImageBacklogBot

Bot has seems to be spamming the example.jpg on tons of user talk and article pages. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 01:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is replacing fair use images with the free image Image:Example.jpg, yes. This is fine. Though some of the removals were questionable, I believe ST47 is sorting this out as we speak. --Deskana (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify the bot doesn't seem to be adding example.jpg to any articles, which would be cause for concern. --W.marsh 02:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Dereks1x sock

Resolved

- blocked by Picaroon Miranda 03:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Heidianddick <--- Quack, Quack, Quack... Miranda 02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Dick by name....?" --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Eachwiped

Sorry, it's late here and I haven't the time to look at this, but this guy has been on a spree of adding {{verylong}} tags to multiple articles, regardless of their actual content. This has been questioned on his talk page but he just blanks it & carries on. Not much of a disruption but he doesn't seem to be doing anything else. Some articles (eg Diana, Princess of Wales) are just long anyway and should not be tagged haphazardly. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that his mass tagging has been reverted...although he still hasn't responded to any comments on his talk page about these actions. IrishGuy ^talk 03:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice from an Admin

I am not sure if this is a newbie just making good faith edits or someone who is going a little "tag" crazy, but Mustufailed has tagged almost every radio station in Pennsylvania with a "Expand" or "Citation" tag. The user has claimed that he is trying to reach his goal "of 1000 edit counts by monday". Not sure what to do here. Thanks....NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Unconstructive suggestions

I'm aware that flaming, vituperation, and WP:POINT are the order of the day after the Durova mess. But it's hard to see how the next to last paragraph of this[23] is helpful to anyone. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, that is largely a copy of a post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Proposed decision#Everyone else, that was somewhat endorsed by at least one Arbitrator (same page, prior section). I recommend a higher thought/keystroke ratio. GRBerry 19:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So, we're now endorsing the public re-posting of private Wikipedia related correspondence? Just trying to get this straight. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

RA, I think posting to a blog site, so it can be "legally" quoted here is clearly against the spirit of the policy. However, perhaps, rather than condemning the page (or Giano's methods) the committee members should consider the motivation driving that page (and Giano's actions).

What hole in the dam are people trying to plug? To me, it appears to be a sincere effort (however misguided the current wording) to fix something that is at least perceived as being broken.

Some people have claimed that Durova would have gone to arbitration regardless of Giano... yet others firmly believe that DurovaGate would have been swept away and hushed.

Regardless of which would have happened (since we'll never know), perception is reality. Confidence in the system has been shattered, or at least soundly shaken. Whether or not Durova had permission to communicate to the committee, she claims that (at least some) members received her email. A good start toward repairing that faith would be for those members to come forward and said "oops". This would be some small step in the right direction to restore confidence in the leadership that is supposed to be overseeing the sailing of this ship.

There may not be a cabal, but as long as the perception exists so does the cabal. Lsi john (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

But only so long as it isn't done on Wikipedia, because somehow it is better to do it elsewhere than on Wikipedia. I believe in transparency, but I can't see why it is better to air our dirty laundry on the neighbor's lawn than our own. It is being gradually edited out. More thought, fewer keystrokes, especially in dramastorms. GRBerry 21:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Silly stuff. Are we endorsing it? Well, if we're locked into silly false dichotomies, sure. If we're not locked into binaries, then we're endorsing whistle blowing and the demystification of an attempted block without transparency, and we encourage people to keep e-mail private, while recognizing that retreating to e-mail is no way to conduct Wikipedia business without responsibility. How's that? Geogre (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Incomprehensible, I'd say. How do we "encourage people to keep e-mail private" by saying it's OK to post private correspondence on your own web page, or to splatter it across public forums? There's got to be a sensible middle ground between keeping everything top-secret and saying anything goes (except, ironically, posting Wikipedia-related email on Wikipedia itself). I note that the proposed guideline is in a state of flux and may yet come to a sensible conclusion. All concerned should keep in mind the principle that hard cases make bad law. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And horror vacui. (see above, arbcom has unfinished business). Lsi john (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we say, "Keep e-mail private. Keep identities secret." However, we also acknowledge that e-mail is no justification for any action on Wikipedia unless that e-mail is part of Wikipedia record. There: I never wanted to try to specify anything, but that would do. You want to e-mail me to tell me I'm a dork? Ok. You want to e-mail me to tell me you're going to block me? Well, then that, if you haven't rationalized it on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia, and you should expect me to make it public in the absence of your having done so. If you block me and say, "per my secret e-mail to super respected people and Jimbo," then you'd best expect someone to post it, if you don't provide an accurate and complete summary. Don't use e-mail to justify on-wiki actions, and then no one should reveal any of your e-mail. Don't use irc to justify or perform Wikipedia actions, and no one will post a log. Try to rationalize, motivate, or hide Wikipedia actions in these ways, and you abrogate the expectation of privacy. Geogre (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting concept indeed. "If the author mentions the e-mail in any way which is used to justify an on-wiki action, it will be construed to be waiving any right of privacy to said email (or IRC log) and as such anyone may post it in full. Lsi john (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd endorse this specific simplification of the issue, but I agree that as a general principle it should not be permissible to say both 1) "you may not question my evidence" and 2) "you may not see my evidence". So far as policy goes, it ought to reflect that saying 1 forecloses your right to insist on 2, even (perhaps, especially) if you come up with an interpretation of policy that says this is not so. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's one of the silliest ideas I've seen in a long time. Not only is it an open invitaiton to gaming, you could drive a coach and horses through it. Even if we applied a need-to-know basis, Giano's edit fail, because the arbitrators already had the email. This guideline was written to enable people to satisfy prurient interests, not to protect the project. Wikipedia is not, and never has been, a free speech zone. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a dictatorship either. A balance needs to be struck that all can agree on. Carcharoth 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Right. And the balance here is that you can mail it to ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• There really ought to be some guidelines somewhere for non-insiders on how to appropriately make use of information from private correspondence. Saying here, "just email it to Arbcom" doesn't solve the problem. Also, the actual text of a message may not be its primary import. If, for example, someone writes you to say that they are not the same person as someone making a particular IP edit and the long headers or other software for tracking IP addresses used in email correspondence shows that your correspondent is using that very IP, the long headers or other ancillary IP indicators are the substanive part of the communication. --Pleasantville 13:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  My gut feeling on that situation would be "email it to any checkuser" - they're the ones in the position to decide whether it is appropriate to publicly reveal the connection between an IP address and a username.—Random832 14:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  But again, easily available guidelines are called for. --Pleasantville 14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (Also, I don't think your check-user analysis is correct, as even IP editors can tag an IP as a suspected sock puppet.) --Pleasantville 14:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

← To be clear here, I was referring to this version. As written now it is a statement of existing policy as underscored by ArbCom rulings, so I have no problem with it. Encouraging people to publish private data anywhere is an extraordinarily bad idea for which we have no obvious need - there is no evidence that ArbCom has failed to act on credible evidence supplied by email, and inviting people to publish widely if a claim is dismissed as baseless is not really a very good idea. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... "...there is no evidence that ArbCom has failed to act on credible evidence supplied by email..." There is no way to qualify an absence, but the examples of outrage from correspondents to ArbCom complaining that their concerns had not been met appear only to be voiced off-Wiki - where the qualification of "credible" is also debatable - so I suppose it is a legitimate conclusion. LessHeard vanU 11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia licensing changing?

What does this mean for my contributions? Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL includes a section which states that any version of the GFDL can be used if no version is specified. Basically, the WMF wants the FSF (who created the GFDL) to publish a new version of the GFDL that would be compatible with one of the Creative Commons licenses. --- RockMFR 22:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

See also [24]. Hut 8.5 16:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed locking talk page for User:Meleniumshane90

This user has unrepentantly been spamming Celebration, Florida‎, has engaged in personal attacks and accused other users of doing exactly what he was doing, made unfounded threats on several occasions [25], has sockpuppeteered in order to fake an account unblock, has edit warred about being able to remove declined unblock messages from his talk page (he may not) [26] [27], and has refused to abide by any consensus given by administrators to him through excessive wikilawyering: [28]. I propose this user's talk page be locked up, at least for a few days, if he reverts again (he will did [29]), and he doesn't stand a snowballs's chance of being unblocked. He is not here to build an encyclopedia. The Evil Spartan 23:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And now we have block evasion: User:97.101.17.152. Someone please handle this request. The Evil Spartan 03:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24 hours. IrishGuy ^talk 04:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If socking continues I suggest sprotecting the article for a few days only - there does seem to be other casual ip activity. LessHeard vanU 12:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Trailers aren't shown in theatres, they're shown in movie theaters

Resolved

 – , for now. Tijuana Brass 03:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a conflict brewing here. I would be interested if some impartial admin(s) could resolve it. I am not interested in a revert battle, especially when the obvious correct solution is so obvious. --Vividraise 03:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any more refs? You know you can have them mediate or have them blocked until it resolves. -Goodshoped 03:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There haven't been any edits made for the past 3 days, so it may have cooled off. If the edit wars start up again, please let us know. In the meantime, you may find Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) helpful; specifically: "theatre – theater: Many uses of either spelling can be found in American English. Both theater and theatre are commonly used among theatre professionals. The spelling theatre can be seen in names like Kodak Theatre and AMC Theatres. However, theater is used by America's national theater and all major newspapers such as the New York Times (theater section) to refer to both the dramatic arts as well as to buildings where performances take place."

In any case, it's not worth edit warring over, trust me. Both spellings are acceptable. Tijuana Brass 03:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm astonished that Vividraise took it to administration rather than one of the normal discussion options. My response to the current compromise, "cinemas," is on the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance talk page. I think it's a reasonable compromise, in light of Mr. Vividraise's warmer than necessary reaction to something on which reasonable people can disagree. I'm happy to see that the admins here recognize the acceptability of the word as originally spelled in the article, but I also agree it's not worth a war. Monkeyzpop 03:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And I am perplexed to see that you inferred from the clumsy linkage to cinema (itself a disambig page which still leaves the user wondering where to go next) is somehow a "recognition of the acceptability" of the word "theatre" as the structure where movie trailers are shown. As for the "warmth" of my reaction, maybe it's the pantaloons that you have determined that I am wearing. -- Vividraise 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If I responded in kind, even a little bit, to your original snideness, I apologize. And here I leave it, as it is clear that despite the compromise, some prefer arguing to discussion. Monkeyzpop 10:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an American made movie, thus, the American spelling "theater" is what should be used here. Why is this so hard to understand? -- Elaich ^talk 09:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, by any reasonable source, including Wikipedia, it ISN'T the "American" spelling. It's as acceptable to spell it either way on either side of the Atlantic, and etymology suggests that "theater" is actually the British version, since the Brits took it more from the Germanic spelling than the French-Latin-Greek roots which are more common sources in American English use of the term. It's a matter of preference, not correctness. But it's also a trivial thing to be going on about. Monkeyzpop 10:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most parts except the language evolution bit. Much of modern French influences entered British English via the refugees from the French revolution and the following francophile Victorian area, at a time American English had already broken away. Theater, center, caliber are all AmE. Of course, AmE has likewise evolved from the common root, but not in this aspect. --Stephan Schulz 10:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

As I'm the one that's deleted all of the images uploaded by Howyoudo (talk · contribs) - and reverted the majority of the copyright violations, I'd like an independent look & possible block for continued (c) violations, even after warnings. Articles in question are Hakuna Matata (song), We are One, ; images are File:Hakuna.jpg Image:Weareone.jpg Image:Weareone.jpg (3x) File:Hakuna.jpg File:Weareone1.jpg File:HakunaM.jpg. SkierRMH (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that this editor surely can't know much about Disney as the summary for Image:Hakuna38.jpg reads "I got special permission from the copyright holder to use online." Heheheh. --WebHamster 12:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin's eyes on paraphilia articles?

Just caught this on #cvn-wp-en: 194.112.32.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - has been blocked before for similar, IIRC. Will ^(talk) 13:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Larry Craig

Resolved

To avoid an edit war, would someone settle this matter between myself and Anastrophe? It's obvious the 2 are distinct but a 3rd party review is called for. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 17:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• You might try third opinions, as part of the dispute resolution process. Regards, Nathan 18:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Meleniumshane90 asking for unblock

I wasn't going to post this here, but this user has severely irked me. He has resorted to legal threats on several occasions (including, "if you change the format of this page, your account will be restricted"). I tried to post a note on his page, but he characteristically just removed it. I ask someone to please handle this unblock (you may wish to see my previous comment: [30] as well). The Evil Spartan 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I declined the unblock. It was posted without a reasoning anyway. I don't see "your account will be restricted" as a legal threat, though. - Philippe | Talk 05:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Further modifications to the format of this page will result in an immediate contact with Wikipedia officials. This is the final warning, harassment is not tolerated on Wikipedia, and I have already requested for assistance from the service department. Seems pretty clear cut to me. The Evil Spartan 05:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds more like "I'm going to tell on you!" than a legal threat to me. — Coren ^(talk) 05:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how I read it too. Kind of "third-grade" fingerpointing. Now, had it said "modify this and I sue you!" then I'd think differently. - Philippe | Talk 05:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a legal threat. Such would assume an attempt to coerce action through a government judicial system. But the block log says he was trying to harass other users so the block was based on that not a legal threat. I would assume there's more to it that the one statement quoted above, right? - JodyB _talk 13:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

After delving a little deeper into this user's contributions, it seems the core problem is an understanding of the WP:EL policy. He's not a brand new user but he has been around enough to know better. Another issue is that some are reverting his talk page where he has removed previous comments and warnings. Such removal of warnings is specifically within guidelines. I'm wondering if there would be an objection to some additional interaction with this user with a view toward lifting the indef block? I will post at the blocking admins page. - JodyB _talk 14:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm the other user who has been the ire of Meleniumshane90's anger of late. I was not aware that one could remove warnings from their own user page unless either they were archived, or they were vandalism themselves. For that, I apologize. As for the "edit warring" regarding the external links, I tried to talk to him. He insisted I was "spamming" and restored the links. I am certain he does not have an understanding of the guidelines regarding external links. I feel he may be willing to listen to reason. I have indicated that I am more than willing to converse with him in that regard. I realize I'm heavy-handed. I am endeavoring to be more understanding. --Mhking 20:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up: I have spoken to the blocking admin and we agree that he can be unblocked if he agrees to certain rules which I have outlined at his talk page. I am waiting for his reply. - JodyB _talk 19:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see my thread further on down. He's currently block evading, still edit warring to remove unblock-declined requests, resorting (albeit false) threats, and on top, he has refused to abide by those conditions. I suggest you actually lock up his talk page, as he's refused to let the unblock-declined requests stand. The Evil Spartan 03:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI: His actions continue on his talk page; he has yet again removed the decline notice from his talk page. I have not contacted him, nor done anything toward him since JodyB's notice earlier today. I do not intend to do so until and unless he contacts me overtly. However, if the links on Celebration, Florida are replaced, I'll remove them per WP:EL. And on another note of his, I have to take great umbrage at his characterization of me as someone who does "not like church-community relations." Nothing I've said has indicated such, and furthermore, he has NOT contacted me to negotiate this amenably; he has only made accusations and threats in my direction. (time to get off my soapbox; my apologies for rambling and ranting, but he really irks me!) --Mhking 05:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both The Evil Spartan and Mhking for your comments above. I have attempted to assist this user and have been been rebuffed. I am therefore washing my hands of him and leaving him blocked indef. - JodyB _talk 11:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Mhking, I'm a regular church-goer, and at that to an evangelical church. So it's not you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No missing white females

Will someone please delete this useless and utterly ridiculous redirect and warn Guroadrunner (talk · contribs) about his behavior creating these kinds of redirects? Thank you. — Save_Us_229 10:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Also Active cultures redirecting to the article Yoghurt is also another inappropriate redirect created by this user. — Save_Us_229 10:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that that one is so inappropriate. Google reveals a very large number of references to yoghurt cultures as "active cultures". --Stormie 23:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Suicide claim - Cause for concern?

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

The authorities have been called. Everything that could be done was. — Coren ^(talk) 19:48, 2 December 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:Vividraise

Resolved

 – Hosiery back in drawer.

Are this User's edits (including such nice comments as this and this) appropriate? Corvus cornix_talk 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, they don't seem too problematic. They are not being pointy at all. We cannot silence criticism although we can ask him to edit elsewhere. Woodym555 22:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't the second edit be considered a personal attack? Corvus cornix_talk 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not really. Shell ^babelfish 22:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that the second comments could be considered libelous up to a point, but it looks like it is carefully worded. This was brought up on a policy page, where it should have been to be honest. Woodym555 22:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• OK, your starter for ten and no conferring: which banned user has sent complaints to the IRS trying to get the Foundation taken down due to this purported conflict of interest? Focus on the terms conflict of interest for your first clue. Here, socky, socky,socky! Guy (Help!) 22:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry Guy, I am not privy to emails sent to the IRS. I apologise for that. For whatever else you are trying to say, could you actually say it? Woodym555 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Check the block log for Vividraise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 23:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Togokill

Resolved

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

FYI - See user page (first edit). Claims to be the indef blocked User:Layla27. Rjd0060 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. User wasted no time to vandalize and get blocked. - Rjd0060 01:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Gdvorsky seems to be coining phrases for the sole purpose of writing Wikipedia articles

This user claims to be George Dvorsky, and has an edit history with a fair bit of WP:COI editing and had a userpage containing a lot of WP:ADVERT. I've warned him about the conflict-of-interest and removed the offending content on his userpage. I also note that User:Gdvorsky was the first non-anon account to edit to George Dvorsky article - which needs some serious cleanup. Dvorsky claims to be in the habit of coining neologisms and then writing Wikipedia articles about them - even when they are never used (as in the case of Astrosociobiology). I'm not quite sure what we have here - Dvorsky may be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, but this account's edits seem like low-level self-promotion. Could someone please check this out and pass judgement on the account's behavior? Michaelbusch 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

I am extremely annoyed to find that the User:CommonsDelinker has been used to change an image I placed on my personal user page IE:- Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg to Image:Ulster_banner.svg and draw me into an apparent edit war that is spilling over from the English Wikipedia onto Wikimedia Commons.

The image name change has been done, via Wikimedia Commons, under the claim that the 1st image is an exact duplicate of the 2nd image. This is incorrect as the 1st image has been uploaded since 28 November 2005, by User:Dbenbenn who is a Wiki Commons Bureaucrat, whilst the second has been created by a new user:- User:FalseXflag downloading the first image and re-uploading it, with a different name, two days ago on 28 November 2007, which technically makes the 2nd image the duplicated copy. It appears that the uploader is involved in an edit war over the name/purpose of the image for his own personal POV reasons on the English wikipedia.

To use User:CommonsDelinker to then change multiple user pages is a form of vandalism, as now many users with different political points of view around the world have been summarily forced to have this change of name forced on them.

To also claim that the delete tag should be removed from Image:Ulster_banner.svg on the grounds that the image was linked to hundreds of articles and templates, is also offensive, had the delinker not been used then the image would not exist on those articles/templates as claimed, having only existed under that name two days ago. It should also be noted that many articles/templates have not been able to be changed, as the 1st image is used in many other countries version of Wikipedia. They were listed on the 1st image page, though an edit by User:Siebrand removed the list from view, though it still visible in the edit history here:- Edit history Image:Flag_of_Northern_Ireland.svg. An attempt has been made to take a back door approach to having the image name changed, when it was opposed by other editors on the English Wikipedia; See:- Talk Page - Flag of Northern Ireland and Image Talk page - Ulster banner.

As a Yorkshireman I consider myself to be neutral over the name or correct affiliation of the image, however I am aware that whilst living in Northern Ireland in the early 60s, and then working in the ambulance service there in the early 70s, the flag was flown on NI Government buildings. My usage of this particular image is to show the Flag that was in use at the time I worked there, I do not wish it to be seen as a link or an affiliation with any particular political party or group, of which I have none!

I am also concerned over the timing of the sudden appearance of the 'New User' User:FalseXflag, who re-uploaded the original image with the new name having only done 3 edit contributions then disappearing to be followed up by other anon editors; See:- Revision history of "Image:Ulster banner.svg" which brings to mind sock-puppet editing!

I have also noted that User:Fennessy has now edited my user page to undo my revert of the User:CommonsDelinker's change of image, in addition to changing many other articles and user pages, despite the fact no consensus to do so has been agreed. This again I consider to be vandalism of my user page, as may the other editors whose pages he has edited. Some may consider it to be a form of bullying to have another editors POV forced on them!

I placed a request on User:Fennessy's Talk page not to edit my user page and advised him I consider it to be vandalism to which I have received this offensive and uncalled for remark, that I consider to be in breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  :-

Well you can "consider" it vandalism all you want, but it wasn't. I was doing you a favor by putting in the new location of an image thats about to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. Fennessy 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To claim that the image is to be deleted is false information, no consensus has been made on Wikimedia Commons that such an action is to take place at this time. User:Padraig has used the system to have his second upload of the original image semi protected, whilst they go about deleting all links to the first. However they will probably find it impossible to delete the foreign language Wikipedia links. which will in all probability require the image to be retained.

I get the impression that User:Fennessy and User:padraig are Wikipedia:Gaming the system and request that their actions in this situation be looked at a little closer.

There is no actual need to rename the image. Over time flags and Icons come and go are redesigned entirely or just amended. If all the various flags that have been changed since they were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons were to re-uploaded with new names, followed by the subsequent changing of links and the various mediations then wikipedia would grind to a halt. The actions of these two users is irrational and disrupting editors from getting on with good editing of this website, and falls within Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Richard Harvey 00:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to take this to WP:AE per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles Will ^(talk) 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Will! However this was placed here at the suggestion of Admin Andrwsc see:- [31] To be honest I don't want to be dragged into an edit war by Trolls, so I think I will leave it up to those with more experience to deal with the editor(s) concerned. I just want to be left alone to get on with proper editing. Richard Harvey 13:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of being trolls, please remember WP:NPA, as for the Ulster banner, I am sure you did see this flag being flown from Government buildings during the sixties, so did I as I was born in Northern Ireland, that was because between 1953-72 it was the Governmental banner of Northern Ireland used to represent the government, but it wasn't a national flag during that period and had no civic status, throughout that period the Union Flag remained the National flag of northern Ireland. This banner along with the government it represented ceased to existed with the passing of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. As for the need to rename the flag, the flag was incorrectly titled as it give the impression that it was the Flag of northern Ireland today which it is not and never was, wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should present facts.--Padraig 09:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not turn this into yet another battleground for that flag, shall we? I think the salient issues of this incident are that:

1. No discussion was made on commons about the image rename, as I suggested here. Clearly, this image is high-use, and contentious, so such a discussion was most certainly the right thing to do. This is not a simple housekeeping matter.
2. The emergence of an apparent sockpuppet (Commons:User:FalseXflag) with respect to Ulster Banner edits triggers some alarm bells.
3. The involvement of Meta:User:CommonsDelinker and Commons:User:Siebrand to quickly "bull" this change through the system before any discussion. Siebrand's talk page already has some complaints from other wikis arising from the ramifications of the change. Perhaps User:Richard Harvey's suggestion to use a name like Image:Flag of Northern Ireland (1953-1972).svg would have alleviated those problems, but since widespread edits were made without discussion, we won't know.

Now, given that much of this incident took place off en.wiki, I'm not sure what the correct response for en.wiki administrators should be, but I still assert that a discussion on Commons:Image talk:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg is the best course of action. Andrwsc 18:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Similar username

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked sockpuppet vandal -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A user created the username Jmlk007 a few minutes ago. This username is very similar to Jmlk17, an established editor and admin. I'm going to assume good faith that Jmlk007 didn't have intent to mimic Jmlk17, but I wanted a second opinion as to whether it be suggested that he change his username. Useight 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, let it be IMO. I don't think it's that close. --Haemo 05:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's easy to see the difference between the two. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The "00" in lieu of the "1" doesn't make it different enough in my eyes to call him not a Jmlk imp. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

His image uploads (if he is male) are a bit more worrying than his name. Gracenotes^T § 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I listed the uploads as possibly unfree images. Usernames like JimboSmith are acceptable because Jimbo is common enough. Jmlk is unique enough that I think that this username is too similar. WODUP 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I must admit I've never seen another "Jmlk" anywhere, but I suppose there is a first time for everything! :) Jmlk17 08:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jmlk007 is a sockpuppet of a vandal who has been vandalising HINDRAF-related articles with tor proxies for several days (see histories). Another sockpuppet was Keling Paria (talk · contribs · block log). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jinxmchue

User:67.135.49.177, an admitted IP of User:Jinxmchue was blocked by User:Adam Cuerden at 20:17, 30 November 2007 for 31 hours for edit warring (and a 3RR violation). McHue re-started editing with his logged in account within 5 hours, and has returned to the problematic articles sortly thereafter. Although he is still within the 31-hour period for which he was blocked, he was actively editing. When he was warned by admin FeloniousMonk that he was evading his block, McHue deleted the warning and claimed that he was not. I have re-blocked him for block evasion, reinstating the original 31-hour block. I am posting this for revue; if another admin believes that this block was incorrect, feel free to adjust (or remove) the block as they see fit. Guettarda 05:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This will be my last contribution to Wikipedia, aside from cleaning up my user space. I believe that Jinx truly believed that his block had expired. His dynamic address probably changed on him, so when he logged out to see if he was still blocked, it appeared that he wasn't. If WP:AGF means anything at all, his block should be adjusted to expire at the original time. But I don't have any good faith left for WP:AGF after the lack of it shown to me by a good number of established editors this evening. If anyone is looking for me, you can find me at Wikinfo, where I will be adapting Wikipedia articles to expand and improve that encyclopedia, without all of the bullshit politics, personal attacks, and faux NPOV. It was fun while it lasted, but time to move on. - Crockspot 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You make a valid argument about resetting the block timer. I agree that it shouldn't have been done.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You make a really bad argument about resetting the block timer, CS. Why give benefit of a doubt to a user that has clearly expressed 0 interest in AGF or working towards a consensus. This is textbook block evading and he should be treated like every other user who evades a block. Have fun at Wikinfo, where all the other lost souls who can't work towards consensus edit to push the POV they try so hard to interject here. Cheers!!! Baegis 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

lol! "Consensus" meaning I have to submit to your POV warriors agenda even when it flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. If I don't, you gang up on me to undermine the 3-revert rule, falsely accuse me of edit-warring, sockpuppetry and Wikilawyering, block me and only me for allegedly edit-warring (even though others are just as guilty of it), and have two admins who are intimately involved in the conflict (gosh, no conflict of interest there, guys), share the same POV, and are probably friends to tag-team me to prevent their admin actions from being questioned and possibly reversed. I gotta tell you, Monk's rejection of my unblock request for Guettarda's block was really beyond the pale. A neutral admin should've been the one reviewing the block. Monk simply saw my name attached to the request and mindlessly rejected it because of his obvious bias against me. So much for neutrality and fairness being required for admins. 67.135.49.177 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the block. Jinxmchue should have AGF'd FeloniousMonks comment and discussed at his talkpage, not deleted the warning and continued editing. Also, the ip commented on their talkpage subsequent to the block/notice and would therefore be aware of the tariff - 31 hours is a day plus 7 hours. It appears that violation of the block was intended. LessHeard vanU 12:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "oops I lost track of time" defense, AKA the "DNS/DHCP warped time" defense is absurd. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't lose track of time. I never made any such assertion and I would thank you not to pretend as if I did. 67.135.49.177 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no binding policy against simply deleting material from one's talk page and no binding policy that says admins warnings must be retained. I read the warning, took note of it and deleted it - all well within my rights as a Wikipedia editor. Is archiving preferred? Yes. Was my deleting uncivil? Maybe, but if it was, it was far less uncivil than FeloniousMonk's behavior towards me. As far as my alleged violation of the block, here's what I sent to Guettarda (which he promptly ignored):

14:17, November 30, 2007 Adam Cuerden (Talk | contribs) blocked "67.135.49.177 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours‎ (Edit warring)

14:17 plus 31 hours = 21:17 on December 1

Other than responding to serious, baseless accusations by Monk, my first non-user talk edit was this:

22:24, December 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:D. James Kennedy‎ (→Verification of content needed for refs 28 and 29 - new section)

I don't know if they're counting the user talk page edits I made to respond to FM's baseless accusations (which he refuses to back up). The block was never explained and I had thought that if you are blocked, you could still edit other people's discussion pages. If I am wrong, then I apologize, however I will not apologize for confronting MF's serious charges instead of letting him make them while I could not respond to them. If I'm not wrong, then I am owed an apology for a wrongful block. 67.135.49.177 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The block is over, so this is mostly academic, but Guettarda's given reasons do not justify the re-block. To wit:

• "McHue re-started editing with his logged in account within 5 hours" - Yes, I did - editing MY USER PAGES (e.g. reverting vandalism), the editing of which is NOT prohibited when blocked. I also responded to serious accusations made against me by your buddy FeloniousMonk on someone else's talk page. As explained above, I didn't think posting on other people's user pages was prohibited and I offered an apology if I was wrong. However, what I was responding to was extremely serious. You'll excuse me if I don't sit around doing nothing while people smear me by resorting to personal attacks and baseless accusations.
• "and has returned to the problematic articles sortly thereafter" - So. Fricking. What. There is no prohibition of returning to certain articles after a block, and I returned to said articles well after the original block had passed (see above and the second email I sent you, though you probably deleted that without reading it).
• "Although he is still within the 31-hour period for which he was blocked, he was actively editing." - As I have explained in both points above, I edited user pages only and my first non-user page edit (to Talk:D_James_Kennedy) was made AFTER the original block had passed.
• "McHue deleted the warning and claimed that he was not" - I was not and I had read the warning. Deleting it, while not "preferred," was still within the rights afforded to me on Wikipedia.
• "if another admin believes that this block was incorrect, feel free to adjust (or remove) the block as they see fit." - Yeah, fat chance of that when your buddy FM responds to unblock requests regarding blocks you made. 67.135.49.177 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Question of Editing

I have a problem at the Applied kinesiology article. A user is repeatedly violating WP:CCC. He is editing consensus, and when I revert, instead of bringing it to the talk page, as per WP:CCC (chart) he just unreverts my revert. I have cautioned him several times on the Applied kinesiology page and the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts page. His edits are on the same topic. On the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts page he complied. On the Applied kinesiology page he continues to revert without bring it to the talk page and achieving consensus or agreement (as per WP:CCC chart.) --Anthon01 11:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As a new user I have been giving Anthon01 quite a bit of slack, but his deletions of extremely well-sourced material, even his deletions of a whole paragraph, is now bordering on vandalism. He seems to think that if he doesn't like new or existing content, he has a right to revert. I think he needs to provide some justification on the talk page first. We need to discuss it. I am trying to get him to use the talk page for discussing his concerns, but instead he edit wars and uses edit summaries. The talk page is where collaboration occurs, not in edit summaries. He seems to think that the CCC chart is the absolute and only method for dispute resolution here, but it isn't. It cannot replace discussion on talk pages. I need more than complaints. I need specific objections to precise wording and why he deletes absolutely impeccable references. Deleting references is quite destructive, especially in this case. -- Fyslee / talk 18:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus can change" doesn't mean "I disagree with the previus consensus and therefore can change anything I want to." It means, discuss coming up with a new consensus before arbitrary and unilateral edits. Corvus cornix_talk 20:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that Anthon01 has been blocked temporarily for violating 3RR on the page in question, so may not be able to comment here. For what it's worth, consensus certainly can change, but the history of that article and the 3RR violation on Anthon01's part suggest that it hasn't changed yet. MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Xgmx

Could someone please review Xgmx (talk · contribs). He has consistently tried to add links to his website SSFree for which he has been warned several times ([32], [33] and [34]). He was recently indef blocked for vandalism, and was unblocked when he apologized. Based on an older version of his user page [35] he is 14, so I argued that he should be given a little leeway, but even after his block he started stumping for SSFree again [36]. Burzmali 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

14 or not, the fact that he's ignored warnings and went back on his apology makes me want to indef-block him for spam. However, I will hold off on judgement until he gives his side of the story either here or on his talk page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just here to correct you, 15 now. Kind of weird how you just realised I added my site on several pages. I did that like 4 months ago and your just now realizing it. Well that was before I was blocked, but now that I'm unblocked, if you look you will see that my forums are no where on the pages, except of course my own user page. Also if you look at my forum you will see that several companies use it as their forum as well (we let some companies use it, its a marketing strategy). So in fact if you say I'm spamming links, well it might actually be true that the SS Free is the official game's forum. Also we never put a link on Wikipedia, without first making sure their is a similar link on the SS Free back to Wikipedia or that the SS Free has a forum for that specific game, movie, music, tv show, or miscellanious other. Please also see that I have served time for this already, if you don't recall me being indefinatly blocked.--Xgmx 12:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if I view your actions in the most favorable light, how do you explain this? Burzmali 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What I did was unforgivable, nothing can change that, but I have to live with it. If i could take back what I did, I would, the truth is, I want to be one of the good guys (and a future Wikipedia admin, except I will actually understand the people, because they don't know there doing wrong, I know, I used to be one of those people).--xgmx (T | C | D | R | DR)

IP faking semi-prot.

Special:Contributions/71.191.91.213 shows an IP to be adding the semi-protection templates to various pages which aren't semi-protected. This IP needs a block and the damage needs undoing. ThuranX 06:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

IP hasn't edited in over 4 hours.Balloonman 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Russbot

Russbot just altered a Bedřich Reicin category in which it put the word "category:" twice, screwing up the categories of said article. Who knows what other articles it has screwed up.--Bedford 09:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

All edits between 5.42am and 5.45am (all the Czech soldier articles) have this problem. At a glance, it seems to be the only one Russbot has fouled up though... The Rambling Man 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've rolled back all Russbot's edits which were still on top (about 80%) for the Czech soldier articles. The others will need to be modified by hand. Russbot can come back and play again once he's making the right changes! The Rambling Man 09:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to The Rambling Man for alerting me to this error. I've tracked down the problem and fixed it (there was a relatively recent change in the template syntax for {{Category redirect}} and the bot hadn't been updated to recognize it). Did a manual run this morning to make sure it works right. --Russ (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeated changes to Asia (band)

Resolved

Transferred to WP:RFPPfor now --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What is presumably a single anonymous editor (in various IP ranges, including 4.238.124.* and 66.19.20*.*) keeps making the same change (largely consisting of removing sections of text) from this article (relating to a period of the band's existence under a different lead singer). Multiple editors, including myself, have been reverting these changes. This has been going on since early on 1 Dec.[37] Any suggestions for what we should do to stop this going on? Any help an administrator can offer? Bondegezou 14:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Page need semi-protecting for a while. Copied this to WP:RFPP. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have now managed to engage the editor in some sort of dialogue on one of his IP address's Talk page,[38] but he's still making the same change.Bondegezou 14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of administrative powers: Physchim62

Sum up: In Catalan Countries there was an edit warring between Casaforra (talk · contribs) and Maurice27 (talk · contribs). Maurice27 broke 3RR. Casaforra didn't. Maurice27 has been blocked several times, for all possible reasons, including because of 3RR (06:29, 10 April 2007). Casaforra had never been blocked nor even warned of any uncivil action. Physchim62 (talk · contribs) shares POV with has frequently a symilar POV as Maurice27 posterior change because of remark by Mountolive. Result: Maurice27 hasn't been blocked (reason: he didn't make any contribution during the last 20 hours before reporting 3RR break. Remark: During this 20 hours the article was with Maurice27's version, so he had of course no reason to continue with the war). Casaforra has been blocked for one week.

Request:

• Unblock Casaforra: first time of breaking 3RR block is just for 24 hours. 1 week is complitely disproportionate for a user with not even one warning in his expedient.
• If Casaforra is not unblocked, Maurice27 should be blocked for at least the same time as Casaforra. If Casaforra is unblocked, Maurice27 should be blocked at least the same time as Casaforra has been blocked.

Explanation: I consider a great miuse of administrative powers this biased way to block users by Physchim62. Why now Maurice27 is not blocked and Casaforra is? they did the same, just with two differences: Maurice27 did break 3RR, and Casaforra didn't (I know you can be blocked even without breaking it strictly, but he was even not warned). And the second difference: as I explained here, people who wanted to remove Maurice27's template, respected him when he added it and we discussed in Talk page. After 17 days (10-27 November) without any answer from Maurice27 (even if he made several contributions during those days in other articles), the template was removed. Then he decided to continue the discussion but he didn't respect the status quo as we did, but he started an edit warring, and Casaforra just asked him to reach the consensus he didn't search during this 17 days. I don't say Casaforra is innocent, but I see at least Maurice27 as guilty as Casaforra; one is blocked but not the other.

I wonder: if Casaforra can not revert Maurice27, should we always wait 17 days to remove the template and then Maurice27 gives us the grace to (after reverting) discuss?

Let's remark Physchim62 was already accused of miuse of administrative powers in the request for arbitration that he opened precisely against Casaforra and other people against his POV, and the result was complitely opposite as he expected: Maurice27 (as I said, a user sharing his POV) was banned during one month.

I know this is not the place to take any decision against Physchim62. Right now I am just interested in solving the injustice between Maurice27 and Casaforra. However, I would like to know which is the appropiate place to make an official complaint against Physchim62 in case I decide to do it. Thank you very much, --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I support Xtv's complaint. When the 3RR violation was reviewed by administrators, they blocked Maurice27 for a very short period of time but did not take any action against Casaforra. Physchim62 decided to jump in by blocking him without giving him a warning -as required, even after having said that he would not intervene in Catalonia related articles given his past involvements in those subjects. Please review [39], [40], [41], [42], to review Physchim62's protection of Maurice27, his spurious accusation against users who have not violated any rules but happen to disagree with his particular POV, as well as the decision of the arbitrators (to block Maurice27). Please also note that this is issue is relevant, since after after his failure to obtain his desired result in Arbitration, now Physchim62 presented is candidature as an arbitrator himself. [43].

--the Dúnadan 23:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I don't see any items in Casaforra's block log. Should the IP block show up there? spryde | talk 23:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I cannot see anybody's block logs (whatsoever user). Is there a glitch in the system? (Casaforra was blocked according to: this.) --the Dúnadan 23:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

An IP block will not appear in an affected editor's block log, which is why there's a separate unblock request for autoblocks. However, it is odd that Casaforra's block log is empty. I checked some users I blocked yesterday, and there block logs have entries, so I'm not sure what's going on there.

That aside, this edit warring block does look appropriate. One week is indeed long for a first edit warring block (I believe it's general practice to start at 24 hours), and Physchim62 probably should have recused him/herself from making any blocks in that case, considering his/her involvement in the article in question. However, I think it would be best to wait for him/her to comment before taking any action. Natalie 23:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, after having looked at Physchim62's log of blocks, I don't see a block of Casaforra. The block log appears to be functioning perfectly fine, so I have no idea what's going on here, or if Casaforra is even blocked. Natalie 23:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Casaforra told he is blocked, and in his talk page says so. As I told, I agree with Natalie, a block might (might not) be appropiate. My complaint is because it's far too long, because there is a discrimination respect to Maurice27 and because Physchim62 should have recused himself of this action. There are many other admins who can dare with it (and who, by the way, decided just to warn him, not to block him, since it was his first time, as you can see in 3RR page). I already asked Physchim62 an answer. So, let's wait...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 00:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Casaforra is, per the IPblocklog, blocked for a 1 week period with email disabled and account creation disabled. Email disabled seems quite odd. Why it shows in Ipblocklog but not the regular one is beyond my comprehension. The timestamp as I view it is 17:21, 29 November 2007. Prior to this, User:LaraLove had blocked Maurice27 for 1 week, then unblocked 3 minutes later. There is an inconsistency here that should be addressed, with comments needed from both LaraLove and Psychim62. I'll go notify Lara, and confirm that Psychim has been notified. I will say off the hand that edit warring to prevent a maintenance tag from being on article is a worse sin than edit warring to put it on, at least in my eyes. The process is tag - then discuss - then fix - then remove tag. Edit warring to take a tag off is attempting to skip the discuss and fix steps. GRBerry 00:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I also note that "Admin X is biased in matter Y" is a standard, usually invalid, complaint made by partisans when someone on their side gets sanctioned. It will be ignored unless evidence is presented or already known of by reviewers. GRBerry 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is not the place to discuss the nuances of the discussion and the appropriateness of the tag, but rather the inappropriate administrative actions of Physchim62. However, I guess it needs to be noted that Pshychim62 does have a particular POV regarding Catalan-related articles and has [mis]used his administrative tools to protect or punish users accordingly on previous occasions, and that is why I provided links above to be reviewed. Please read them, I know some of the pages related to Evidence are quite long, but they merit the attention of administrators. This is not the first time that this issue has been brought up. It hardly matters whether a user from my, their, our side gets unfairly sanctioned but the fact that he was unfairly sanctioned is what must be addressed. I guess if an impartial administrator had blocked a user for the first time, then the issue can be dealt directly with the administrator. But Physhcim62 has been historically involved in the discussions with a very particular POV, and that several users have complained about his inappropriate leniency towards Maurice27 (who has been blocked eight times) and his rapid blockage of users (like Benimerin), and therefore this issue needs to be brought up to the attention of other administrators.--the Dúnadan 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, GRBerry, we are here to assume good faith, and if someone posts something about administrator abuse, we need to take it seriously and look into it. Dunadan's claims so far, if correct, are a serious problem. The Evil Spartan 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I screwed up on that point; I missed Dunadan's sets of links. GRBerry 03:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Again reserving judgment until the actual administrator's have commented, I would venture that it's a good general rule to avoid using admin tools for incidents in which one has been involved, except when the need for tools is beyond obvious. In other words, an admin's active involvement in an article should not be a problem in the case of simple, obvious vandalism. But edit wars are complex and the "fair" thing is often quite nuanced. In that case I think if the administrator has been directly involved, recusing themself can do no harm. Natalie 01:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment from LaraLove

The block of mine in question, where I blocked Maurice27 (talk · contribs · block log) for one week then unblocked 3 minutes later, was my first 3RR report block, I believe. I reviewed the edits and Maurice's block log and decided one week was a reasonable block considering previous blocks and that he'd just come off a one month ArbCom ban. After I blocked him, I realized he hadn't edited in several hours. I spoke with other admins in IRC for their opinion and was told that because blocks are not punitive and he'd not edited the article in ~20 hours, I should not block. There was also discussion about what previous blocks should be factored in when determining time. Regardless, I immediately unblocked and placed a warning on his talk page. That was the extent of my involvement. Lara❤Love 06:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see there is now a further problem with this admin. listed below at [44] 15:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Physchim62

Well, this really does seem to the open season on attacking me, doesn't it. Nobody bothers to ask themselves if this is a reasonable "question" to be asked in ArbCom elections, or whether the other parties are abiding by the ArbCom encouragement. I have already explained the circumstances behind by block of Casaforra here. I note that the unblock request was refused by an uninvolved admin here. I would be grateful if uninvolved admins could look at the actions of Dúnadan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Xtv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to see if they merit further action, as it would obviously be too contraversial should I take action myself. Physchim62 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Tell me Physchim62, what rules have me and Xtv violated? On what merit do you label us as vandals and want to take actions, other than us disagreeing with your POV? Please, I urge uninvolved administrators to review my contributions as well as Xtv's. Please do, and please review the links I provided above, so that we can end his spurious and senseless accusations from a partial administrator against us. And while at it, please review Maurice27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After a serious impartial look at our contributions, tell me, does it really make sense, as an administrator, to block Casaforra but not Maurice27? --the Dúnadan 23:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

May I ask to the Dúnadan something?. I keep wondering why does my name keep appearing in every one of your complains if 3, I repeat, 3 admins here above have not expressed any problem about my acting in the article Catalan Countries (apart the 3RR).

I have nothing to do with this "complain" from Xtv and yourself. Therefore I EXIGE that you quit this attitude! I find your obsession against Physchim62 (doubting his good faith) and myself (calling me vandal) completely out of place.

I ask the admins involved in this "incident" (to call it somehow), to seriously take a look at all 3 users asking for the head of Physhim62 (Xtv, Dúnadan and Casaforra). I can't understand how a bunch of users who's only meaning in wikipedia is to get other users blocked at all cost and which are not caring about other users' rights or opinion, are getting free of warnings by whom are supposed to take care of wikipedia (apart Physchim of course).

Casaforra felt in his own trap. He acted incorrectly, negliged wikipedia rules, and got blocked. PERIOD. There are no secondary or obscure intentions. Physchim acted in a pristine manner, just as he has done with me in the past. Doubting that, is only possible in someone without good faith.

I sincerely hope this complain, brings new admins to take care of these users. After a RfA, reporting an admin and a continuous fight for almost 6 months, I think it is enough! These users are trespassing all limits. --Maurice27 07:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care much about all this process ridden brouhaha, and so I don't have (nor want to have) an opinion about Casaforra's block, but as an editor who is familiar with all these topics and all these editors, I think by now it is quite obvious for unrelated administrators that, from the initial Casaforra's issue, a certain "off with Physchim's head" bloodthirst has erupted, and that looks like it is related with past grudges that Dúnadan bears about Physchim. I think this should be noted as well. Mountolive | Oh My God, Whatever, Etc. 09:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like other editors involved in the dispute are upset, which is understandable. That's precisely why administrators are supposed to avoid blocking users they are in conflict with. I really don't think Psyschim has provided an adequate justification for doing so, and should reconsider in the future. Natalie 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just have to say that Cassaforra is still blocked being his fault his very first fault and without being warned, and then he can not give here his oppinon on the matter, while the user with whom he had the war and who actually broke 3RR, can contribute here giving his oppinion.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Maurice27 has oppened a discussion in an apparently change of actitude which I consider that as long as it lasts, can be a great improvement to our discussions in talk pages. I propose that Casaforra is deblocked immediately (let's remember he is already blocked several days for his very first edit warring) and close the case. If Maurice27's attitude changes again for bad (hopefuly not) or Physchim62 acts in Catalan-related articles as an administrator again apparently (for some users) partial, then an official mediation will be required. Let's hope now everything goes better... cheers,--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 03:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Block on 203.109.223.1

Submitting a block I've made for community review. 203.109.223.1 (talk · contribs) doesn't have any contribs or deleted contribs as of this writing, but I've hardblocked it following some recent events. Bactoid was recently blocked by Moreschi as a suspected troll. Bactoid claimed the account had been compromised by roommates and was back under control. After brief discussion, Nat, Jpgordon, Moreschi, and myself developed consensus to unblock Bactoid with the understanding he would fly "straight as an arrow," and that any further problems would lead to an immediate reblock -- in particular, because the "compromised" account added itself into the running for Arbitration Committee while compromised, displaying knowledge of the elections, and of technique for page (and subpage) creation in the Wikipedia namespace, templates, and transclusion.

Bactoid on Wikipedia is Bacta on freenode; recently a user joined several Wikimedia IRC channels impersonating Jimbo Wales as "JWales," including channels such as #wikimedia, #wikimedia-ops, and #wikimedia-stewards. Moments after this user departed WMF channels, they changed nicks to Bacta (a registered nick, requiring identification with a password). This user's IP address was 203.109.223.1. From memory, similar incidents have come up in recent days. Once again, Bacta reported that roommates are to blame. As much as I might like to, I cannot post logs from WMF channels due to channel policies; it is worth pointing out, however, that Bacta has been removed (or autoremoved) from #wikipedia on multiple occassions, following disruption. It took this last incident for me to put things together.

A checkuser contacted me, while I was looking into this, and let me know that the IP in question does belong to User:Bactoid, and that it is not shared whatsoever. Bactoid's recent unblock request confirms at least the first point.

Judging from Bactoid's story, it seems that his roommates have free access, at will, to all of his computer(s) and account(s) in all forums and websites I know of. It appears these roommates also have fairly intimate knowledge of Wikipedia and IRC norms that go far beyond what the average newcomer might know of. The question begs itself, how many times can we allow the "my brother did it" excuse? Either Bactoid himself is the source of the disruption, or Bactoid is unable to secure his accounts.

Further complicating matters, it's come to my attention that another, very similar account, was indefinitely blocked shortly before Bactoid began contributing, see Bacta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given that this appears to be a (slowly) dynamic IP, it may be hard to tell if other accounts might be involved. Moreschi previously believed the Bactoid account was problematic; based on a willingness to assume good faith, this user was given one last chance. Based on prior problems, and the uncanny knowledge of Wikipedia displayed on multiple occassions in the past month, I made a judgement call.

Currently I have discussed this with multiple administrators, including bainer, lucasbfr, Deskana, SQL, Nat, and AzaTht. There was lengthy discussion in #wikipedia-en-unblock, some have told me logs from this channel are considered public, but I will confirm this before distributing any. Bainer wanted me to mention he might favor a shorter block.

There are certainly reasons this block might be controversial. Some might call it an IRC block. Bactoid's account has made some helpful edits. Obviously, I believe I've made the right decision, but I do not presume to assume that will be a final decision, and I do not wish to hide. In any case, I submit this block for community review. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A decision to block on IRC is probably Bad Mojo, but evidence on IRC of disruption on Wiki is not necessarily bad. From what you say here, this looks like a good block. I would recommend posting the technical bits of the IRC logs to keep an on-wiki trace (channel enter/leave, etc). Not quoting anyone shouldn't be a problem, and the CU can confirm on-wiki. — Coren ^(talk) 16:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• I can not see anything on wiki to justify this block. I have reblocked AO ACB pending something on wiki. Nathan 16:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason I favour a shorter block on the IP is because WHOIS and RDNS indicate that it's part of a /12 block allocated to an ISP, resolving to a dynamic DSL service, and long blocks should typically not be made on non-static IP addresses. --bainer (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the reasoning behind blocking AO ACB. Either we hardblock the IP to prevent disruption coming from it, or we block the named account because we don't believe the story, or we don't block at all because we think the block was wrong. AO ACB is just useless here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple. There was a user affected because AO was not set. So I added AO, and left ACB for Luna's benefit. You are however correct, so I have unblocked altogether. Nathan 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you unblocked because the user the block was intended for was caught in the block without discussion? -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate clarification on this point. With all due respect to you, Mercury, but the timing and nature if your responses lead me to believe you didn't read or investigate the above text in any detail -- you almost said tl;dr in essence. Why haven't you allowed for discussion to establish a consensus? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• You can block the account directly. If need be, get a checkuser on this one I suggest. We don't use off wiki IP coorelation for blocks here I don't think. That would be inexact. If you feel my action is unreasonable... Any administrator acting in good faith may reverse my action, I will not consider it wheeling.. Nathan 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I'd support a block on the user, and, I'd be willing to bet, that bacta is Bacta (talk · contribs · count)... Therefore, the IP block is probably justified, for a short while, in addition to account blocks, due to what can only be described as abusive sockpuppetry, either by the user, or, roommates. SQL^{Query me!}

While the block is unconventional, from the way Luna explains his actions behind it, makes the block seem like a good idea. Just my two pennies. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Prior restraint, go-go-go! Soon our precious wiki-fiefdoms will be safe from hypothetical editing by supposed rogue IPs and the vandals who may or may not control them, if said vandals even exist! GOOD BLOCK! Metastasize 19:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So here we go again, someone takes great pains to explain a block and the first person who comes along and disagrees thinks that unblocking is better than discussion. If you don't think its warranted, say so, explain your reasons and let a consensus form. Where's the imminent danger that required an immediate unblock? FWIW, Luna's reasons make sense to me -- if we see collateral damager, maybe then changing the block would make sense. Nathan, you should reverse yourself. Shell ^babelfish 20:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree. Luna's reasoning is sound and the case well put. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Accounts are blocked to prevent disruption from an account. Also, it appears that his account can be compromised again. What makes it so complicated is that Bactoid's unblock requests sound possibly legitemate, but nevertheless, there is a pattern of disruption that must be ceased. Under this rationale, I endorse indefblocking his account and hardblocking the IP. Maser ^(Talk!) 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And I wouldn't be too surprised if Bacta = Bactoid, given the username similarities. Maser ^(Talk!) 23:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

We've all heard the one about the compromised account and the room-mate or family member making the bad edits, and none of us will ever credit it. Either there is significant on-wiki disruption from this IP address, or there is not (and I don't really consider his arbcom nomination very disruptive, any more than a bad RfA). From what I've seen on-wiki I consider a 3-month IP hardblock on the harsh side. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A self-nom in and of itself, no, but I'd encourage you to look at the deleted edits (if you haven't -- "I'm a troll and a damn good one at that. I think that more than qualifies me for the position on the arbitration committee."), plus Bactoid's assertion the account was compromised. Point taken on the duration, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the reversing admin has run into some unrelated complications, deleted their userpage, and seems to have left the project, at least for the time being. We may need to consider the possibility there will be no further explanation or communication from them, on this matter. To my eyes it looks like their reversal was not supported by consensus, but as I have a bias on that front, I'd appreciate it if somebody neutral had a look. Currently neither the IP nor the account is blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose to block the account and leave the IP unblocked, since it seems this is a dynamic IP (Bacta used at least 2 other IPs from this network to connect to IRC) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the block of the account. I'm less sure of the ip. Can we clarify whether there has been any vandalism from the ip that hasn't originated from the account? If not, perhaps we might be better blocking the account. Blocking the ip is effectively a ban so I think we need wider evidence of vandalism before doing this. As I have learned (painfully) myself, its always a bad idea to overturn a block that is being discussed here before waiting for consensus to develop. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block on the account, without the IP blocked, for the time being, until either more socks show up, or the user in question can secure their account. SQL^{Query me!} 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Reading through this I find it sad people will persist in the strange delusion that I would be behind the "sockpuppetry" on IRC. Can someone answer the question as to why I would derive any pleasure from this? Compare this with my account and the positive edits I have put forward to Wikipedia. Such idiotic behaviour is not something a user of my character would indulge in and I thank Nathan for reverting what I consider an unfair banning (I say banning because thats what it is no matter how you dress it up). FYI I have found out who went onto IRC the otherday posing as JWales and I have talked to him about it, he assured me it would not happen again. Cheers! Bactoid 05:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeanenawhitney

User:Jeanenawhitney constantly calls other people's edits vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars_%28US_season_5%29&diff=174932018&oldid=174931779 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars_%28US_season_5%29&diff=174959479&oldid=174957391 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars_%28US_season_5%29&diff=174931559&oldid=174931549 When asked to assume good faith, Jeanenawhitney accuses me of vandalism. She's declaring ownership and authority over others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.176.42 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, are those edits yours? There are a different IP address completely. Those edits (changing a chart's colors, and removing a chart) seems like vandalism when they are done without explanation. Now after her reverting, I see that the IP address continued to repeat itself, which is not the way to do it. In fact, she went above and beyond by telling the user to specifically go to the talk page instead of just a typical template. Now, for you, I'd first like you to explain this edit before I go further. Unless I'm missing something, that looks like vandalism from you to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously that is something that I don't do. if I want to vandalize I would do something a bit more creative than that. Also the other IP is not removing a chart, user Jeanewhitney is the one removed the chart, see it again http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars_%28US_season_5%29&diff=174959479&oldid=174957391

ironically after calling that edit a vandalism, she later readded the same chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars_%28US_season_5%29&diff=174960584&oldid=174959479

If you disagree with the formatting of the chart, you don't accuse people of vandalism. She was asked to assume good faith but she responded with even more vandalism accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.176.42 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Eso si que es

As User:John254 points out here, Eso si que es (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a pun on the word "socks." Two questions: is this grounds for a username block in itself? and is there reason to believe that this user violates the sockpuppetry policies? His activities so far have been mildly disruptive but not beyond the pale in themselves. I am neutral on both of these questions but thought them worth asking others. Chick Bowen 02:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it means 'That is what it is' roughly in English(I never took Spanish, j'ai pris le français dans l'école secondaire, but I've picked it up over time), can't comment on the pun. Dureo 08:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It does have a double meaning (Ess - oh - cee - kay - ess : SOCKS - very clever!), but they haven't done anything yet; I'd just keep an eye on them. Neil ☎ 12:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope the Clinton's former cat doesn't try to set up an account. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My first thought in dealing with this editor was that it was a sock. There's even an old joke about a Spanish speaking customer in a department store where Eso si que es is the punchline. The name is clearly meant to be SOCKS, and the user's contribs indicate this is not his/her first account, but I suppose "watch and see" isn't a bad tactic. - auburnpilot talk 15:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I also recall some Spanish language class provider used this in its advertising; see how easy it is to speak Spanish. Carlossuarez46 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate name

I've had my user name for over two years. A new user just took the name Notmyrealname7 (see edit history here). Not sure what the policy is here, but I often edit contentious pages and have previously initiated grievances. Is it legit for this user to take a name that's so close to mine? Notmyrealname 05:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You definitely should report it. Goto Wikipedia:Username#Reporting_inappropriate_names to get guidance on how to report it. It qualifies under criterion 1: Confusing names "Usernames that closely resemble the name of another Wikipedia user and may cause confusion."Balloonman 07:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at NMRN7's edits (TP), I gave him a uw-username warning - the only edit (s)he's made is good-faith, and I hope (s)he decides to get a username change. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Something fishy, though - very first edit is a properly-formatted and policy-quoting request for unprotection of a salted page that has Arb Comm issues [45]. Bencherlite^Talk 12:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

NMRN7 could very well be an anon who has lurked or edited here for a while before registering. Only if they start filing checkuser requests does the Red Flag program on my computer pop up while I'm writing D&D stuff. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note beneath Jéské's explaining what the issue with the name is, since the template could be pretty baffling. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem at Card sharp

Resolved

Thoroughly-sourced changes at Card sharp (and Card shark redir) are being reverted by 2005 (talk · contribs) who labels his reversions "Rvv". Not a huge deal, but could probably use a talking to about what "vandalism" means and how reliable sourcing vs. personal PoV works. [46][47][48] — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like SJP (talk · contribs) already talked to 2005 (talk · contribs) about it.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Similar but unrelated incident, and it hasn't stopped. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I left a level 3 warning on that user's talk page. Carlossuarez46 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a disgrace - treatment of Nishidani by admins

This concerns the Norman Finkelstein article. As Nishidani still appears to be blocked, I am copying his observations here from his user page: permanent link to the talk page Reformated by -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC), see rationale below.

In my view:

• The initial blocks imposed by admin User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry on three editors showed poor judgement. To resolve an edit-war, editors need to discuss on the talk page, and they can't do that if they're blocked. Page protection would have been better, although in this case I think it would have been premature.
• Neither RolandR nor Nishidani committed any violation of Wikipedia rules, yet they remained blocked after the other editor User:Andyvphil was let off (on a technical argument that his first "revert" was not a revert), despite sailing very, very close to the 3RR wind. User RolandR has now been correctly unblocked.
• Nishidani is an excellent editor who adheres scrupulously to WP rules on verifiability. He also shows scholarly erudition, and has made enormous improvements to many articles. Of the three editors involved here, he is the one who least deserves sanction.
• This incident raises several other, more serious issues. I will let Nishidani's words above speak for him.

--NSH001 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section, and replaced it by a permanent link to the talk page, to the revision just prior to this thread. First because this prevent any edits to the section, and it also allows much easier commenting here: The sections titles in the collapsed part were breaking the page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I should have gone through and turned all the section headings into level four headings before adding them here; I think that would have solved the problems about breaking the page. I did think it was very important that Nishidani's words should appear here (rather than just a link) so as to draw attention to the injustice. I still urge everyone to read Nishidani's talk page carefully. --NSH001 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In the words of the Message Board Help forum at GameFAQs, "Fair. Next." Will ^(talk) 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Next"? Wtf does that mean? Nish is still blocked.[49], and he should never have been, and certainly shouldn't be blocked now. Cav is going around the protections in the 3RR (the "clearly disruptive" wording[50]) and "disruptive editor" policies (the "frivolous accusation" procedural protection[51]) by banning on grounds ("edit warring") where there is no explicit check in policy on his discretion. There is no excuse for Nish ignoring my edit comments and restoring the text to the footnote without addressing the missing ellipses and unmentioned added italics I had pointed out, but it was absurd to ban him after only two reverts and the failure to unban him when RolandR was unbanned, merely because he'd pissed off another admin, was unconscionable. Andyvphil 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

MBH is pretty much GameFAQs' ANI. Will ^(talk) 22:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that. But that was not my question. Andyvphil 02:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked User:Andyvphil, and, I did not do so, because of any wikilawyering over 3RR. I did so, because after consulting the blocking admin, I still felt that 72 hours was excessive, for a user with no prior 3RR blocks. I can't comment on the other users, as I didn't review those blocks, but, I wanted to correctly represent why I unblocked (what was said above is simply not correct). As an aside, can we get rid of the collapsable talkpage section? Maybe link instead, it is making it VERY difficult to edit this section in Iceweasel/Firefox. SQL^{Query me!} 14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, I have "barged in like a bull in a china shop to wield his arbitrary judgement on a page of whose complex history he seems wholly unaware.". This is partially correct. I am not aware of any of the issues surrounding Norman Finkelstein, nor do I wish to be involved - it is simply my place to stop edit-warring.

I therefore stepped in to stop edit-warring (note how the block log states edit-warring and not 3RR), or if you like, "breaking the spirit of the 3RR". I checked the blocking history of all three users. Nishdani has been blocked for edit-warring twice before: 8 and 24 hours respectively. RolandR has been blocked several times, and though not all were upheld, it still shows a clear history of edit-warring. Upheld blocks were for 24 and 48 hours. Andyvphil was the user I felt bad blocking, however - no prior history of edit-warring, so 72 hours is a bit harsh. However, I can't very well block him for 24 hours and the other two for 72 and 48 - differing block times would just lead to me being accused of favouritism, and after 24 he may very well go back and revert the article again, much to the displeasure of the still-blocked other users. To conclude: my block of Andvphil was harsh, but understandable in the interests of fairness. The other two users were blocked for edit-warring, and I stand by that judgement. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I should add that I have never been on active assignment outside of Devon, have no idea who Norman Finkelstien is, and the very suggestion that I should avoid articles about places where the US, UN or UK military are based is ridiculous, because that covers about 40% of the places on the planet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Chase Me states above that "the block log states edit-warring and not 3RR". That may be the case, but the first I knew about this was when I logged on, to find a message on my talk page stating "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule". There was no indication as to where I had allegedly violated this rule, and it was only by checking Chase Me's contributions that I learned that this was in relation to Norman Finkelstein. On that article, I had made just two edits in the previous 24 hours, and two more in the preceding month. This is scarcely indicative of edit-warring. I don't think that either Nishidani or I should have been blocked at all in this case. And, even if Andyvphil should have been blocked, a 72-hour block for a first offence is certainly excessive, as even Chase Me agrees.

It is revealing that Chase Me admits to having no knowledge of Finkelstein, since this means that he could have no understanding of the context in which rhese disputed edits were taking place. What we had here was a conmplex situation, where editors who had previously complained about Andyvphil's disruptive behaviour on Ilan Pappé, then discovered him making similarly disruptive edits on Norman Finkelstein. In both cases, this consisted of removing well-documented material favourable to these radical critics of Israel, while inserting poorly-documented and tendentious hostile quotes. Andyvphil had clearly stated his intention of introducing such material in the Pappé article, despite opposition from most editors, and even if this meant continual edit-warring [52], so it was reasonable to suspect him of doing the same in the Finkelstein article, particularly after he had four times in one day removed the same relevant contextual passage. I state this, not in order to justify my edits (or Nishidani's), but to support Nishidani's allegation of Chase Me "barg(ing) in like a bull in a china shop to wield his arbitrary judgement on a page of whose complex history he seems wholly unaware".

Nishidani's continued blocking is indeed a disgrace. It does not serve the needs of Wikipedia, but seems merely a punitive retribution for his harsh comments about another admin. This is not the function of a block, and it should be rescinded at once. I also think that, since these blocks were entirely unjustified in the first place, but are likely to sit in our block logs and be used against us in the future, the logs for all three affected editors (Andyvphil, Nishidani and RolandR) should be amended to remove this block. And I believe that Chase Me has demonstrated that he is not fit to be trusted with the tools of an admin, and should have his power to block editors withdrawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandR (talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is nobody going to to lift this ludicrous block on Nishidani?

• even the editor with whom he was in dispute thinks he should not have been blocked (see Andyvphil's comment above)
• Nishidani hasn't done anything here to deserve being blocked
• Nishidani is going to be left with an unjust stain on his block record.
• Of the three editors involved, Andyvphil was the one closest to breaking 3RR; the others were nowhere near.
• Admins need to exercise extreme care when dealing with Israel/Palestine articles (which obviously includes Norman Finkelstein). In this case, the blocking admin was misled by Nishidani's block record, and this incident is just going to compound the problem. See Nishidani's talk page for the reasons why. Nishidani is not the only example of this phenomenon, Palestine Remembered being the supreme example.
• the refusal of the reviewing admin User:Swatjester to allow Nishidani's unblock request is deeply disturbing. He appears to have a conflict of interest here; the unblock request should be looked at again by a truly independent admin.
• the correct admin action in this case would have been to have first posted a note on the talk page, asking editors to resolve their differences there, and warning that the page would be edit-protected if not. As I mentioned above, it is pointless blocking them, as that prevents their attempting to reach consensus on the talk page. This dispute (of the kind that goes on all the time on I/P articles) had not yet reached the point where blocking or protection was warranted.

--NSH001 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I can not resist adding my voice to this issue. I have seen a lot of User:Nishidani's work and it is of notably high quality, so I was rather surprised when I found out about it. His block messages says:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule.

OK, so it's a WP:3RR. For what article? Looking at his block log it indicates: Norman Finkelstein. Looking at the history page, Nishidani's edits for the last month are:

• 03:18, December 2, 2007
• 20:32, December 1, 2007
• 06:46, November 7, 2007
• 22:40, November 3, 2007
• 22:39, November 3, 2007

We all should know what a WP:3RR violation is:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

There is not a single set of three or more edits "within a 24-hour period". So when he asked for a review and was denied, I am sure that he was rather mystified, as was I.

Then he is told that the violation is not the WP:3RR as initially listed but was something else entirely: WP:EW. So, again, looking at this above edits, none of them seem like edit warring to me. There are several minor style issues and then restoring of verifiable, quoted references. The comments even invite editors to discuss the issue for better suggestions. There should be nothing wrong with these edits. What else more do you expect of him? This block seems highly unjustified and is owed a decent review by others. Bendono 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree this block seems excessive or even unwarranted. Blocked without warning for two reverts at the beginning of the editing session. This does not seem like edit warring worthy of a 72 hour block. I am not convinced by the unblock review either. I would like to see an immediate unblock with time served, and an agreement not to return to make the same edits. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As stated previously, I'm happy to unblock the users if they decide to go back to the talk page, instead of constantly reverting each other. Edit warring serves only to increase the strain on the servers - it has no other effect. If someone makes an edit that you don't like, possibly revert once - else, the talk page is the only place that should be visited. If another admin is willing to unblock all users concerned, I'm happy with it too - so long as they do not go back to edit-warring! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to have been an excessively shady and poorly thought-out series of actions by both Cavalry and SwatJester. The initial block was, at the very least, excessive, punitive, and poorly explained. Subsequently, Nishidani's remarks that members of US and British armed forces (currently at war in Iraq against Arab insurgents) are unsuitable arbiters of an Israeli-Palestinian WikiWar was taken as "Being insulting towards admins" and used as an excuse to decline his unblock request. The rationale for declining unblock contained no discussion of policy or relevant conduct; it seemed to be simply a question of petty "revenge". All of this could have been avoided simply by protecting the article which was the locus of dispute and encouraging a proper, reasoned discussion on talk. Instead, experienced contributors were slapped with dubious blocks. Very worrying. <eleland/talkedits> 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Tiamut 01:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Arguing before an audience of admins that they should curb their behaviour is unrewarding. The appeal of collegiality over fairness to the peons will win out most of the time. As I remarked on my talk page (which I urge you to consult if you have any inclination to believe RolandR's tendentious misrepresentation of the underlying facts) while I was blocked, "admins who have looked in at this have been very resistant to commenting on the particulars" (which I was insisting was necessary, under 3RR policy, to establish "clearly disruptive behavior" in the absence of actual 3RR). Thus although Swatjester should probably have recused himself from denying Nishidani's appeal, it is unlikely that many other admins would have made a different decision, judging from the comments left on my page.

And I want to make clear that my comment that leaving Nish under block when RolandR was unblocked by AuburnPilot is not directed particularly at the latter, since Nish's request for unblock had been taken down by Swatjester by then, and AuburnPilot was probably simply unaware of that block. Andyvphil 04:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, I've been told again and again by other, more experienced admins that a block is infinitely preferable to a full-on page lock. A page lock would prevent anyone from editing the article - I understand in this case that my block lengths were a bit excessive, and I will apologise to the users in turn, but they must in turn realise that discussion is infinitely preferable to reverting. even a brief look at the edit history of the entire article shows that no-one was willing to come to a consensus. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In that respect you have a good point; the preference here seems to be for blocks over protection. It looks like you had to protect the article anyway, though. In my opinion, if there is clearly enough recent disruptive activity to implement protection, but only debatably enough recent disruption to justify blocks, protection would be a wiser course of action. <eleland/talkedits> 01:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I commend you for your intention to apologize to the users. Discussion is indeed a good way to solve conflict. In that spirit I hope that in similar situations in the future you will consider discussing things with the people in question before you block them. Haukur 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Calvary, you're right: protecting a page prevents anyone from editing it. Also consider that blocking someone prevents them from editing any page. Concentrating on content, instead of contributors, is not an idea limited to personal attacks. Cheers, Gracenotes^T § 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and unblock per the above. Haukur 01:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it... I was gonna unblock as well.Balloonman 01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ESP

I protected extra sensory perception due to Colbert idiocy. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You should have known in advance that would happen :P --WebHamster 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

He is obviously not Stephen Colbert :). On a more serious note, we seriously should have ColCom position who is assigned to watch colbert and protect the articles/issues he mentions. It gets to be annoying after the 300th time it is done. spryde | talk 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Are they still showing reruns? -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Until the WGA Strike ends, yes. spryde | talk 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean we'll be seeing even more elephants? --Carnildo 03:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. And not all of them will be pink. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Collectonian and Tin Man (TV miniseries)

Resolved

 – (Moved into article talk page.) `'Míkka>t 18:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think that Collectonian may be attempting to exert "ownership" over Tin Man. He She has reverted good-faith edits as "vandalism" because it didn't fit his viewpoint that any reference to the original Oz characters is OR, which is plainly not true (one can point out some similarities so long as he or she doesn't say there's a connection, and that wouldn't be OR in the least). — Rickyrab | Talk 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

She is trying to keep unsourced original search and editor opinion out of the article. Pointing out similarities is no different from implying a connection. Other editors reverted the same additions earlier, I just happen to be the only one online at the moment policing the article.Collectonian 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know Collectonian was a she. My apologies. Nonetheless, it would be easier if the show's own stated descriptions themselves didn't imply a connection! ("Re-imagining of the Wizard of Oz"? come on, that's a blatant implication of a connection.) — Rickyrab | Talk 17:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is a sourced statement, not my own opinion. Collectonian 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that common sense is enough evidence to link the characters with their counterparts in the Baum novels. Isn't there a WP:COMMONSENSE policy that is useful in these cases? Kyaa the Catlord 17:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this discussion to the talk page of Tin Man (TV miniseries); let's not waste any more of the admins' time on this, ok? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Endlessdan

Resolved

We appear to have one of the candidate pages for the Arbitration Committee Election nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Endlessdan. Could I ask an admin to have a look? The candidate page is here. The nom is already on record as opposing the candidate, but this seems to be a little much. Thank you. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been speedy kept for obvious reasons. The institutional role of ArbCom is certainly not something so fragile or sacrosanct that we must defend it from irreverent nominations. --Haemo 19:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

List of designated terrorist organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

 – Crossposted onto the article's talkpage and #wikipedia.

I have removed all organisations on this list due to the article being in the category Category:Articles that may contain original research since December 2006, as a test case to my "long-term problems" proposal. Editors are requested not to revert it, but to use sources to build it in a non-biased verifiable way. Thank you. Will ^(talk) 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing here requires admin intervention, so I'm marking as resolved. Carlossuarez46 04:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

68.149.135.29 (talk · contribs · 68.149.135.29 WHOIS) and The strokes (talk · contribs)

Resolved

It is patently obvious that after facing a couple warning templates for trying to own a template, and then being warned by me for this edit summary, he logged out and posted these as an ip user: [53], [54] and others. So, the question I have, is should The strokes be blocked as well, perhaps for the same 72 hours his IP was, or should an RFCU be filed first, or just leave it since the IP as blocked? Resolute 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• At this point, if the disruption continues around the IP block (i.e. from a logged in account), then the account can be blocked for evading the original block. I don't think a "premptive" block of the account is necessarily a good idea, which is why I didn't do it. I'd rather deal with a situation as it manifest rather than second guess it.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Works for me, thanks. Resolute 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And put a notice about WP:OWN, because I didn't see anyone tell the user anywhere. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good call.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with auto XFD process?

I see from the thread "User:PresterJohn" above that the MfD for this is listed as a second nomination and there appears to be no first nomination. This happened to me earlier when I used WP:Twinkle to AfD Pick Me Up Magazine, was notified that there was already an existing AfD and forced to redirect. I also had to go round & change a couple of notifications manually. I still haven't found an original Afd but I believe it has been speedied in the past. Any idea if there's a problem here? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Could Twinkle be having a problem with "patrolled" articles? Corvus cornix_talk 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. I'll drop a copy of this on its author's page. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:128.240.229.67

Report has sat on AIV for almost an hour now. This user was warned about disruptive editing (serial POV, incorrect information, interfering with users' talk pages). They have neither ceased their behaviour nor asked for clarification about the warnings, so I assume that they know precisely why they have been warned. Since the AIV, they have made further disruptive edits that seemingly nobody wants to clean up (knowing that the user will only revert again). Can someone drop in a block please? IP may be shared or a residential gateway, but contribs suggest this is all one user. 85.92.190.81 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:Stormie has blocked both 85.92.190.81 (talk · contribs) and 128.240.229.67 (talk · contribs) for 4 hours, citing edit warring as the cause. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:TStolper1W

User's only activity is to delete legitimate criticism of Randell Mills and hydrino theory, claiming that they are violations of NPOV. Has dis-regarded multiple warnings. I reported this to intervention against vandalism, but it was removed by User:Dlohcierekim, who judges it a content dispute. However, I do not understand how the account's activity is anything other than disruptive deletion of content. In the mean-time I will warn TStolper1W with 3RR, and recuse myself from further editing in this. Michaelbusch 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

TStolpher1W has just been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violations. I have un-recused myself to restore the criticisms to the articles. Michaelbusch 22:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Standshown

SPA account Standshown is deleting or changing all articles which are speaking about Serbian puppet regime during WW II. In article Serbia (1941-1944) he has deleted table of puppet state using like argument Montevideo Convention. In article Puppet state he is deleting list puppet regimes under control of Germany and Italy using similar argument and refusing discussion in which article we need to transfer data deleted on this article (if we accept his wishes).

His POV thinking is very clear because he is deleting puppet regimes of Germany (because they are not states) but not deleting from the list Far Eastern Republic or Finnish Democratic Republic which has been puppet states or puppet regimes of Soviet Union.

To end my arguments that this is vandalism I will only add that signatories of Montevideo Convention are american states and that European or Asian states has never accepted in state documents this definition of state.--Rjecina 01:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Satoe2158 user page deleted for advertising

has had his userpage deleted twice for advertising. He has not responded to talk page posts except to place {{{hangon}}}. I've left him with a link to WP:Userpage and told him that he must stop doing this. Dlohcierekim 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Subgen (talk · contribs)

Subgen (talk · contribs) has taken to making personal attacks against me over at Talk:Universal Life Church. I left a warning, but a hand could be used. Thanks. GJ 03:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• It has to be said that the above talk page is a law suit waiting to happen. An admin with a mop needs to do some cleaning sharpish. --WebHamster 03:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, still need help with him. GJ 05:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like some admin opinions please

I came across this completely by accident today: User talk:68.44.228.244 (it is deleted now, but admins, please, go see what this looks like to an innocent IP receiving it). At first glance, of course I was just appalled, so I went to the history to see why someone would put such a thing. It turns out, this is a template, that has the Template:Humor banner at the top, but it is not included when substituting or transcluding, so when using this template, the person who reads it, has absolutely no idea it is a "joke". At first, I thought, "well, we can just add to the end of it, This template is intended as humor, and should not be taken seriously, or, remove the noinclude tags, so the {{humor}} template shows up, right?"

But then I started thinking about it. And while everyone who knows me, knows that I appreciate fun, I believe that one can have fun while doing serious editing, and believe it is a good thing, I also think that there is a line that needs to be drawn at some point. To have even a humorous template say "I've hired a hitman to take out your whole family, one by one, and then finish with you." is unacceptable, in my personal opinion. And the fact that this was used, by an anon IP, on another anon's page, who had no idea it was a joke, is disturbing. I wonder what that person thought? I realize most people would dismiss something like that, but what if this was a child editing? I consulted with an administrator I highly respect, and they felt the same as I, but I'd like to know if I am perhaps over-reacting? Or am on the other end, should this be speedied as unacceptable, even as a joke? I'd honestly like some additional eyes, and opinions. Thanks so much! Ariel♥Gold 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This actually comes from User:Deon555/Templates/Hitmanvandal. I've added the note to the template itself so when subst, you can still tell its intended to be humorous. I'm not sure that's ever going to be funny, since it would be incredibly biting to anyone new and I can't imagine needing a template like this. My preference would be deleting it entirely. Shell ^babelfish 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that's where it is from, I linked to it above :) Thanks, Ariel♥Gold 04:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I love me some funny. That isn't funny. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the template has already been deleted. It said in part "I've hired a hitman to take out your whole family, one by one, and then finish with you. We don't like vandals, you see." It would be difficult to be any less appropriate. I have indefinately blocked the anon who placed that on the other anon's page. Should action be taken against Deon555 (talk · contribs) who created the template? -- Infrogmation 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've undone your block. Indef blocking of an IP is almost never a good idea; unless you've got evidence that it's a static IP, you should only go with short blocks. Secondly, that edit was from about a month ago; there could have been dozens of people to use that IP since then. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What about open proxies? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:PROXY. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did say almost. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Making death threats no longer warrents a block? Noted. Suggested action, if any? -- Infrogmation 05:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that death threats don't warrant a block (though the fact that it's an IP certainly does factor into it). I'm saying that a block coming a month after the edit, when the potential for collateral damage is so much higher, is a bad idea. Blocking so long after the fact for the sake of going through the proper motions isn't productive, and the block becomes punitive rather than serving as a deterrent. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Death threats are indeed still blockable, and, if we were talking about an account, I'd be endorsing the indef block, too, however, this is an IP, and, as was pointed out, that was a while ago, it does not appear that the same person is controlling the IP anymore, at least, to me. Endorse unblock... SQL^{Query me!} 05:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocking a /16 for a fortnight with account creation disabled

Please review Sarah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s latest blocks, there are four /16 ranges blocked for 2 weeks with account creation disabled. It's based on a policy drafted over a year ago, and on IRC tonight we've had someone who was collateral damage to these. I'm not faulting Sarah at all, but I'm asking if the policy should be changed to allow account creation, or maybe he doesn't use these IPs anymore, or what not. --Golbez 04:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I know me attending the SFUSD has nothing to do with this, but the IP at my school is currently blocked for one year with account creation disabled. Maybe it's a shared IP she was blocking? -Goodshoped 05:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, unlikely, since her blocks were only for two weeks. --Golbez 05:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Goodshoped, User:DerHexer blocked your school's IP because of vandalism. I've never blocked that IP before. Sarah 05:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I was actually using ranges given to us by a checkuser last time. Unfortunately he does still use these ranges - check out AN (he's the anon on about private checkuser). Goodshoped, what does 156. have to do with these blocks? The ranges I blocked were Bell Sympatico. Sarah 05:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

These blocks are based on checkuser information. Daniel 05:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment the banned user seems to be using the 64.229.* range exclusively. I'm glad to see that one has been reblocked - with any luck, I won't need to redo the others. Daniel 05:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

212.162.164.144

Resolved

• 212.162.164.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) persistent antisemitic vandalism - diffs:[55] [56] [57] [58] [59] Here is where he blanked his user page removing numerous warnings. He doesn't edit every day or even every week, so I don't think a 24 or 48 hour block will have any significant effect.

I reported this at WP:AIV and they told me to bring it here because he hasn't edited in a while. --Steven J. Anderson 09:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A procedure note first: Current consensus is that users are free to remove warnings from their user talk page, that serves as an acknowledgment that they read them. That being said, and due to the nature of the edits and that there is little doubt this is a single user, I'd support a long term hardblock on the IP (1 month?) to drive the point home. This is a customer IP that does not appear to be shared. Any objections? -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Inasmuch as he has been warned a block is warranted. The only thing I am unsure of giving it now, almost two weeks after the last edit. - JodyB _talk 13:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good news everyone, He edited today ;). I let a second pair of eyes handle it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that anon IP addresses have the right to remove warnings from a Talk page, since it is not "their" page. Corvus cornix_talk 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One month block. Carlossuarez46 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have suggested a long, if not indefinite, block, or deletion - he recieved FIVE LAST & ONLY WARNINGS and a please stop notice. That is more than enough notice. Luckily it seems to have already happened. Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 18:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

www.erotikebooks.com

This is at least the 2nd time http://www.erotikebooks.com/ebooks/load.htm been linked from an article. It advertises a likely malware executable. Can this site be added to the blocklist? / edg ☺ ☭ 05:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I could only find it once in the article you provided. Maybe the page should be protected? It's not enough for a blacklist. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend protect and blacklist. -Goodshoped 05:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

blacklist or protect for 2 links??? There's more serious spam than this to be concerned with. Just remove it and warn ~~

What article is it being added to? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

History of erotic depictions. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:JPG-GR

Resolved

- This appears to be resolved. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This user last night wished to have hear from me again. Fine, no problem. Tonight, this user is trying everything (including tagging images I have uploaded for deletion) to pick a fight. I am not going to argue with this person but if an admin could step in and tell this user if he wants me to leave him alone, he needs to do the same. Thanks...NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer has now three times blanked discussions from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 4, rather than discuss the proposed deletions of images he uploaded which violate the FURG because they are of a excessively high resolution. I am not going to revert as while I don't feel this may cross the WP:3RR rule, I also prefer to steer clear of the line rather than tiptoe around it. JPG-GR 06:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

When the images are that big (and that is the only one available)...there is kinda no way around it. Also, I am not using the FULL version, I am knocking it down to 200px. But that is not the point. The above user stated that he wished not to hear from me, but tonight he makes it almost impossible not to talk to him, since he is the one tagged images (images I have uploaded) in what can only be seen as an attempt to start an arguement or fight. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I have tagged all three images with the {{non-free reduce}} tag and hopefully the "size" issue should be taken care of within say 24 to 48 hours (depending on when it is seen). - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Only one available" to you perhaps. When they are of that size, they are easily "replaceable" ("easily" as in there is most certainly a replacement, not so much "easily" as in easy to be found). This is a violation of the FURG, unless I am misinterpretting it.

As for me stating that I did not wish to hear from you, that didn't stop you here, hours after my request and hours after my last edit and hours before my next. It's quite clear my talk page is on your watchlist. - JPG-GR

Both you two should stop it. Just use {{non-free reduce}} on the image pages and let someone else put a reduced version on. IFD isn't necessary but NeutralHomer, you shouldn't delete the listings. That doesn't help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of {{non-free reduce}}, but will use it in the future. Thank you, Ricky. JPG-GR 06:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

User:Jai Dixit, formerly User:Lokantha has left a scathing comment on my talkpage titled: "You need to see a psychiatric bro!" [60] This goes against all of Wikipedia's policies. His behavior is uncivil and impolite. I am surprised that this user has gone so far as to tell me to see a psychiatrist!

The user has also uploaded images under false licenses [61], thereby putting Wikipedia in legal trouble.

This user has also suspected of engaging in sockpuppetry. His IP sock is User:74.140.120.11. This was proven when he left a comment saying "Sockpuppetry involves different usernames, not IP addresses"

I hope appropriate action will be taken against an impolite, uncivil editor who tells others they need medical help. Please take the appropriate action. Nikkul 07:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the two of you have a content dispute over some images. While the comment you point out wasn't appropriate, a simply personal attack warning should suffice. You might want to try dispute resolution. Also, in regards to the image, when he realized his error, he put it up for deletion himself and in short order at that. Bringing that up looks like you're just trying to pile on things to make this report look like it has more weight. Shell ^babelfish 08:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sukiari

I might be stepping into something right here, but I found this user's userpage on vandal patrol, simply because the words he was using about a former admin were so inappropriate (it appears his IP was also editing the page). Someone who knows more about this situation might want to handle this. The Evil Spartan 07:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested to him that he remove it. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova incident slashdotted.

Durova incident slashdotted. [62] I've protected the archive page as a precaution. Keep eyes open please. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've also semiprotected Durova's user page, the talk page already is. Should at least keep out the random vandals, we can always full-protect later if need be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also the topic of the current Help Desk comic.[63] EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Date warrior

Resolved

 – Blocked --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 15:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Carnun talk continues to date war after repeated warnings and blocks. A look at his edits shows numerous era style changes against consensus all with the edit summary "common usage" --Steven J. Anderson 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's arguable whether they are against consensus, but I've given him a final severe warning to stop messing around. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's much that's arguable about this. He changed every date in the article and deleted the comment documenting that consensus has existed since 2004. --Steven J. Anderson 12:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I discovered this happening at Sudan yesterday & reverted them all. WP:MOS says they can be either format but should not be changed without consensus. Suggest he's blocked for disruptive editing if he doesn't stop, since these edits are unnecessary and load the servers without good cause. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with vandal in dynamic IP range 206.170.103.*

I understand that with the issue of dynamic IP ranges, other people may be using it. However, in this case, a user in this IP range has vandalized persistently, albeit infrequently, three articles on my watchlist. My concern is that this user may have vandalized many more articles in the past. Here is a brief summary of this user's vandalisms:

• Persistent, yet infrequent, vandalism in article Raiden Fighters 2 since October 25, 2007. The vandal added deliberately misleading information to the article. The user performed numerous edits at a time to prevent easy reverts.
• Upon semi-protection of the above article, the vandal attacked two pages in the same series: Raiden Fighters and Raiden Fighters Jet. The vandal added the same misleading information as was added to the Raiden Fighters 2 article.

Judging by this person's actions, it is apparent that this individual's motive is to cause trouble in the relative safety of a dynamic IP address. I suggest that this IP range be monitored. This IP range resolves to AT&T Internet Services in Monterey Park, California, USA. JudgeSpear 11:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this is the City of Monterrey Park using ATT per CustName, not AT&T itself. spryde | talk 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Briancutajar (talk · contribs)

Resolved

This user, while not necessarilly guilty of explicit vandalism, has introduced dozens of inappropriate articles to Wikipedia. Most of those articles have been deleted or speedy deleted because of either notability or copyright issues. It seems as though he "writes" a lot of articles by simply copying and pasting from other websites. He has been left several warnings about this and he has created several pages today that have been tagged for deletion. He needs to be stopped. Thanks. SWik78 15:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Gave a last warning and keeping an eye on him. — Coren ^(talk) 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject environment

Hi there, User:Andrew_Nutter has been recently warned in relation to vandalism of previous articles. On the wikiproject environment participants page he recently alerted all interwikis for the names of the participants to the idiot article. This can be found here: [64]. --Alex Marshall 16:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for vandalism. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Persistent and frustrating vandalism

A user is vandalizing numerous articles (particularly World War II related) by randomly changing numeric values and basic facts. So far he has used IP addresses 75.89.15.34, 71.29.15.155, 75.91.37.192 and 71.28.190.11. I have managed to get him blocked each time but his persistence and the insidious nature of his destructive edits has me dismayed. For example he has gone through a few articles on popular music and randomly changed the chart number for various songs and albums. To me this is the worst kind of vandalism and would be easy to miss if he wasn't changing so many values at one time. I have been working hard to combat vandalism but when I see how much destruction one single person can cause it makes me hopeless about the long term accuracy of Wikipedia. How can we possibly stem the tide? I am depressed about this and it makes me feel like not even trying anymore. Rob Banzai 17:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Both resolve to Little Rock, AR. and are part of a large /14 pool of addresses so a range block is unlikely to help here. Just don't give up! - JodyB _talk 17:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for ANI clerks - discussion on AN talk page

Please contribute at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal for ANI clerks. Thanks. Carcharoth 17:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ostensible breach of WP:TALK by User:Perspicacite

Our guideline WP:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages states: "The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes." Perspicacite has now removed the questions (and the comments of other editors) without providing an appropriate response or canvassing the removal of other editor's comments on the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAngolan_Civil_War&diff=175534728&oldid=175532620

When I asked him on his talk page to replace the material and discuss matters in future, he removed my question with an edit summary of "No": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APerspicacite&diff=175541745&oldid=175540365

May I revert this excision and the sourced material that was removed in successive reversion(s)? Alice.S 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S has repeatedly spammed the talkpages of articles where I edit. Her spam was moved to her talkpage. She has done this previously on Talk:Rhodesia, Talk:Tokelau, etc. Jose João 19:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

These two have been at each other like cat and dog for weeks now. Someone else needs to have a look at how best to resolve it as they have both completely ignored my advice which was to avoid interacting with each other. --John 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ban her? Jose João 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How about if both of you leave the other person alone? That seems like a simple solution. --Haemo 19:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What Perspicacite alias Jose João calls "spam" are requests for editors (including himself) to comment on why he is removing sourced material. In both the cases he mentions there is no support whatever for his position on the relevant article's discussion pages. I wish he would address himself to the edits and not the editor and stop producing smokescreens. In both cases he removed comments by editors other than himself or I without their permission. Alice.S 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S has never added sourced material. The only comments I have ever moved were hers. She knowingly restored an anonymous user's vandalism to ACW earlier today. Why hasnt she been banned? She does not contribute anything. Jose João 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true. I wish for someone with knowledge of the subject matter to examine the (mainly technical) edits I have made and tell me why they are being reverted (but only by P). I need to learn what it is that Perspicacite objects to. I now assume that it is the editor that he is reverting rather than the edits but I am fully prepared to be educated if there is actually something wrong with my edits. Most other editors are scared of being attacked in an ANI or ArbCom by him and don't dare comment but the only ones that have commented, have consistently failed to support his reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARhodesia&diff=174630777&oldid=174630708 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAngolan_Civil_War&diff=174402424&oldid=174398606. Alice.S 20:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

None of that, as usual, is true. Jose João 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have, once again, suggested a way forward at my user talk page. --John 21:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I responded to you by e-mail, yesterday, John. I do hope that we can improve the quality of the article that is the subject of this incident report. This is really a test case for whether content is important to admins and whether article talk pages can be allowed to be subverted and by-passed. Alice.S 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The two of you need to engage in dispute resolution and stop cluttering this noticeboard. Since talking obviously isn't working, you might consider getting a mediator. Shell ^babelfish 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. This board is definitely not the appropriate place for this argument, and it appears that a lot of arguing has gotten you no where. I would suggest either completely avoiding each other or getting a mediator, as Shell suggested. Natalie 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to receive an answer to my question rather than platitudes. May I restore the editors' comments from the talk page that were unilaterally removed? Yes or No and then that'll be the end of it from me. Alice.S 20:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your question is something two adults should work out in a mature and capable fashion. We're not going to play teacher, and give either of you a mandate for continued behavior in this vein. Take some advice, and try dispute resolution, or just avoid one another entirely. And, for your information, admins are not content arbiters — they are just regular editors, with a handful of tools, and have no greater or smaller mandate to comment on content issues. Content is important to admins — but it is totally unrelated to their functioning as admins, and any content-related dispute you have should not be addressed to admins solely because they have a sysop bit. --Haemo (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try and ignore the deliberate smokescreens above. This question is not asking you to adjudicate on a content dispute; the editors of the article in question are able to do that - but not if the discussion is removed from the talk page of the article. How can content disputes be settled if the losing party to the discussion just unilaterally removes the whole discussion. Please don't try to characterise my question as asking you to decide on content. I am asking you to rule (or intervene) on the removal (and stymying) of discussion on the article's talk page. Alice.S 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:132.181.160.42

Blocked User:Concerned cynic continues to edit tendentiously via an IP while his main account remains blocked. In the past, he has manifested in groups of three (usually 2 IPs and his main account), though at the moment he is mostly using only the one IP number from his university.

I am not sure how to approach this. Should I file another checkuser for User:Concerned cynic? Should I initiate an RfC so that the mathematics WP community can evaluate his whole body of work over his IDs and his various IPs? There are also other issues such as deceptive edit summaries that have annoyed the community lately. He works on fairly arcane topics, so what is at issue with his edits may not be immediately apparent.

What is the best course of action? Is this the right venue? There is more to this story, but I don't with to ramble on here if I'm not in the right place. --Pleasantville 23:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Checkuser confirms the sockpuppetry by blocked User:Concerned cynic: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Concerned cynic. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Harassment of Durova by anon

I made my views on the Durova affair known but no matter what I think on that issue, the user harassment is a separate one and should not be tolerated.

An IP editor, switching the IP's for the second time edit wars with Durova at her talk page [65] to reinsert the press article on her conduct despite Durova made it clear that she does not want that there. Edit warring with the user over his talk page is unacceptable. One of the anon accounts is already blocked by Alex Bakharev after anon disregarded my warning. Harassment resumed from another IP in the same range. Someone, please keep an eye on the history of Durova talk and block harassing anons from same IP range on sight. It is obviously the same person and no further warnings are necessary. --Irpen 08:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect the talk. Just be grateful there isn't an article on her :/ Will ^(talk) 09:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We might want to salt the title, if it isn't already done. Mr.Z-man 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's currently a redirect to Nadezhda Durova. John Carter (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Birth/death categories

BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) has been removing a number of birth/death year categories (e.g., Category:279 deaths). Was there a centralized CfD that I missed? If so, can someone direct me to that discussion? Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That particular category was deleted 23 September 2006 due to being empty since 30 August. I'd guess that the bot is removing links to non-existant categories generally. I'm not aware of a big CFD, have you asked Betacommand? Given what I guess is going on, I'd recommend recreating the category - it seems better to recreate a category deleted for emptiness when there is a use for it than it does to delete a category for emptiness and then later depopulate articles added naturally to it. GRBerry 17:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Election stuff

Well, I suppose this was inevitable. Dbuckner (talk · contribs) has been attempting to sway the ArbCom elections through a smear campaign against one particular candidate, both on the vote page and on several talk pages of users who support that candidate. I've blocked him for now, I believe such actions are highly inappropriate, and distort the fairness of the election process. >Radiant< 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noted that. His last answer at your talk page deserves a block. Supported. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So here's the question: As an election monitor, do I redact or remove the offending comments? Or do I place them behind a show link? Or, do I leave them? If the user was blocked for mudslinging, do we clean up the mud or leave it alone? I would lean toward removing or redacting them, but I defer to consensus here. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked Dbuckner following his agreement to stop the aggressive canvassing that resulted in the block. He is a good editor who has allowed himself to get overly carried away by the issue. I have advised him to done down his complaints on the vote page and to substantiate them with diffs. Probably someone to keep an eye on, but I thought a gesture of good faith towards him appropriate. WjBscribe 19:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The block has been removed, as I apologised. I leave it up to you as to guidelines on what to do with the page. It mostly consists of links, and some discussion. My point relates only to PUBLIC statements, on WP, made by the user in question. edward (buckner) 19:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Private Checkuser

wtf? Please explain the justification for using Checkuser on me? Also, please detail the results which resulted in consluding I am a sockpuppet and blocking me? If you are so sure, why did you need to block 300,000 other Users? Why was a village pump and RFC topic erased by Daniel that many had contributed to? Mentoring07 99.234.94.25 18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What are your accounts? this seems to be your only edit--Hu12 18:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#.22Private.22_Checkuser_use is a topic I began and contributed to. Mentoring07 is my user name. 99.234.94.25 18:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

please note I registered a User name as requested when I was editing with just the ip addess. 99.234.94.25 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is not really the place for this to be discussed. Please see The Ombudsman Committee for privacy related complaints. There is nothing an administrator can do here. Mercury 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS ABOUT CHECKUSER ABUSE AND THE BLOCKING OF 300,000 IPS !!!!!

I was on the block list yesterday myself. Can't you people wake up? 70.48.205.153 18:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems you have been identified as a sockpuppet of Neutralizer. As a banned user you are not permitted to edit Wikipedia under any account or IP. WjBscribe 18:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that the anon is indeed being abusive towards checkusers, and he is right to be concerned as this abuse is indeed unacceptable. Perhaps another checkuser can verify if the address above is an open proxy. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Even so, is here the right place? — Rudget _{contributions} 19:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

a threat of violence on Roman (film)

Resolved

 – Blocked by Tonywalton

In a recent edit (thes two edits) to the article Roman (film) threatens violence against a person. Can someone block the user (User:Demonchild 13 7")? It might also be good to inform law enforcement in whatever locale this user was editing from. I have no way of doing the former or finding the latter. So, I'm asking here.

Cf also a question I asked regarding the policy on this sort of thing.

-- Why Not A Duck 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for harassment. One more such edit when their block expires and I'd say "indef block", and I'll not accuse anyone of wheelwarring if they up it this time. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN

Resolved

 – Already in ArbCom's hands.

User:TTN has performed several acts such as uncivilty and acting superior to other members and trolling (in his specific case, sending AFDs to satisfy himself; see List of Bleach characters talk page and List of One Piece characters talk page). Recently, he has also been suspected of puppetry. I suggest that something be done to be dealt with this matter before a blocking or banning is suggested for him. I am sorry if I'm not reporting correctly, but I have to get off right now, so please forgive the mistake. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He's AFDed some articles you wish he hadn't: that's not incivility or trolling. "Acting superior" is not an issue wikipedia administrators are empowered to enforce. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, please present it here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN is currently involved in an arbcom case. You may request an injunction there. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the user's contributions over the past few days, and can't really find any blatant evidence of incivility. There's clearly some disagreements between the two editors, but nothing that (to me) raises any alarms. Here is the listing at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, though it's not in the list (perhaps the page was just created). Dr. Cash (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Profg

Profg (talk · contribs)

This user was blocked by an admin who had his actions reversed by another admin (User:B) who said he would "adopt" the user. Subsequently, User:B has left Wikipedia and only returned to edit VTech articles, leaving this user unblocked and able to continue disruptions. Please consider reblocking.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be a bit cruel to yank back a second chance wouldn't it? Let him go, unless we have new problems. Prodego ^talk 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What has he done? He !voted in the arbcom election, wikified a word in an article, and responded to a direct question pertaining to an arbcom case. His comments that he left with his !votes - "POV-pusher. Shouldn't even be an admin." - could be considered trolling I guess, but on the sliding scale of "not very nice", that's pretty minor. --B (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, let it go. None of this is too bad. I'll keep an eye on his contribs for a while, but unless I see something ugly, I'm inclined to let him continue editing. - Philippe | Talk 00:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, i am a bit concerned about his return, since there are some Conflict of Interest problems - he outed himself in one of his past edits. It's not the worst conflict of interest, but... Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So we keep an eye. if there is disruption, then there seems to be plenty of potential for a long block or ban. If there is not, then we can say lesson learned and acceptable editor. Don't be hasty if there isn't any direct disruption, please. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I have no plans to be hasty, not after last time, but I do think we'd best watch him pretty carefully, and I'd be happier if someone officially took over his mentorship. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Linking to external harassment

Sfacets (talk · contribs) has added a link to his user page that goes to a webpage dedicated to harassing an individual who is also a WP editor. When he added it he made it clear that he knew the target of the harassment would dislike the link.[66] I brought the issue up on Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment#Case study as a test of how that proposal would work in practice. As a result, JzG removed the link from the user page and initiated a discussion on the user's talk page. Sfacets repeatedly restored the link, insisting he needs it for "reference", but without giving any encyclopedic reason. As suggested by Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, I'm bringing this issue here to seek a consensus to remove the link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless the user can provide a compelling reason why they need this link on Wikipedia, it strikes me as being rather problematic. I notice they refused to provide such a reason, earlier. Is there some reason this needs to be on the top revision, in particular? – Luna Santin (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A refusal to provide a reason is good enough grounds to take action against that editor and the link. We try to do everything here collaboratively, and a refusal to collaborate makes NPOV editing impossible and thus the editor excludes themselves from our fellowship. Such a wish should be respected, IOW block the sucker. -- Fyslee / talk 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems pretty clearly to fall under WP:USER#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F as "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors". That policy notes that latitude is given regular participants, but I think latitude stops when an explanation is requested and refused, per Luna Santin's link. There are many alternative ways the editor might keep this material for reference. (All the browsers I know offer bookmarking, for instance.) I'd support removing the link, unless there is clear & compelling reason for it to remain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that [67] is also an attack page (a superset of the other) and can be found elsewhere on the 'pedia with a linksearch. I'm going a-hunting now. — Coren ^(talk) 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

... and indeed, there seems to be way to many links to the "guru"'s site. POV warrior, anyone? — Coren ^(talk) 15:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that he not only links to the ugly attacks on me (and others) by his co-religionists, but he adds links to words from the attack and adds a link to my place of work. --Simon D M 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Simon, if you have a diff for that then we may be looking at harassment, in which case he is in deep trouble. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff: [68] --Simon D M 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, he;s really helping his case here [69], especially with the added spice of threats [70]. I wonder if our friend might need a short break from the stress of dealing with those who do not subscribe to his minority POV? Guy (Help!) 19:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he was just blocked for the game-playing on his userpage. I'd say the matter is closed, unless and until he starts trying to reinsert the link after his block expires. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block, given his apparent unwillingness to follow our behavioral guidelines. He still readded the link even when we addressed it as being disruptive, and he wouldn't give us his rationale as to why the link should be kept. Maser ^(Talk!) 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really sure what else we could have done, here. Tried the easy way. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I confidently expect further problems when the block expires, staring with reverting the removal of links to his guru's website. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Guy is right when he predicts that the problems won't end when the block does. To clarify matter I should give some more background on this website and dispute. "Adishakti.org" actually belongs to a schismatic group who believe that the main organization does not proclaim the divinity of the guru loudly enough. Both the schismatic group and the main group share a dislike for the subject of the harassment, who is a one-time follower and now-critic of the guru. Sfacets is associated with the main group, and has repeatedly removed links to the Adishakti.org site.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84] Unaware of the harassment pages (there are no links to them from the main pages) I restored those links since the deletions appeared to be motivated by POV. However now that Sfacets has become aware of the harassment pages he is in favor of linking to the site and has restored links, in one case even to the same page he previously deleted it from.[85]

Regarding the additions of the link to Sfacet's user page: In addition to adding[86][87][88] and repeatedly restoring the link after it was removed by admins,[89][90][91][92] he added internal links that touch on personal details of the person mentioned on the harassment page, including the person's place of work,[93], the programming language in which the person is expert,[94] along with links to terms that appear on the harassment pages, such as "exocism",[95] "tarot",[96] "vishnu", etc. [97] There are also terms that, in this context, appear to be comemnts about the other person, such as "nutter",[98], "insanity",[99], "infantile", and "abnormal psychology". Given that context it appears undeniable that the only intent was to harass. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The case is compelling. If the content reappears, escalate through dispute resolution. GRBerry 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason I was blocked was not because I added back the link (of which I made no connection to any editor btw) but it was because I placed a link to a diff on my userpage. If users are blocked because they place links on their user page, then Wikipedia is a complete sham - it isn't a Democracy, sure but it isn't supposed to be a Despotism either. I asked the editors who were removing the link why they were doing so, but neither one of them gave me a valid reason - I was not harassing anyone, and it is apparent that there is no Wiki policy that states that I can not link to a "harassing website" even if I was. Meanwhile Guy thought it a good idea to remove every single link from the domain in question from Wikipedia, including from a protected article. Sfacets 12:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From the victim's point of view, the harrassment is as nothing compared to the daily misery of having to engage with Sfacets' sham discussions on talk pages which he uses as an excuse to block any edit he doesn't like and proceed with any edit he wants to make. --Simon D M 10:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to create a neutral article. You are trying to push your POV. But this isn't the place for this argument. Sfacets 12:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are a neutral editor and I'm the Shah of Iran. --Simon D M 13:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not exactly helping, but I do get the sense that Sfacets is having difficulty distinguishing MPOV from NPOV. He also seems particularly combative. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets has been blocked again for a civility issue (personal attack in edit summary) and 3RR gaming on Meditation. I have left a warning on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not a surprise. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

During the same period Sfacets also violated 3RR on Nirmala Srivastava: [100][101][102][103]. And he made multiple reverts on User talk:Try-the-vibe: [104][105][106], and on Sahaja Yoga meditation: [107][108][109], just short of 3RR violations. Those are all in a 24-hour period, and in the same period he made more reverts on other articles too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tjalling Beetstra, Criminologist1963 and COI

I think we've got a clear case of conflict of interest at Satanic_ritual_abuse_in_The_Netherlands, and I'd appreciate some administrative attention/advice.

A few months ago at Satanic Ritual Abuse, an editor called Criminologist1963 posted a large amount of material, much of which was rambling, speculative and unsourced. The material was taken from a similar article at the Netherlands Wikipedia that had been translated and pasted into the English SRA article. Some of the material was factually incorrect, but the editor repeated blocked any changes to the material.

Much of the material was sourced to a Dutch PhD candidate called Tjalling Beetstra, who runs a website where he offers his commercial services as an "expert" on SRA. Criminologist1963 cited Beetstra as an authoritative source no less then three times, then mentions Beetstra as an expert in the article itself, and provides a link to Beetstra's commercial website.

A number of similarities emerged between Criminologist1963 and Tjalling Beetstra (they are both Dutch, they both study "Satanic Ritual Abuse" from a skeptical POV, they both claim to be criminologists, and they were both born in 1963) such that it was reasonable to believe that Crim1963 and Beetstra were the same person.

After reviewing his material, editors deleted it, since (a) the material breached a number of Wikipedia guidelines related to sourcing and NPOV, and (b) it seemed that Beetstra was using Wikipedia to promote himself, and to promote a commercial service.

When his COI was uncovered, Criminologist1963 promptly created the article Satanic_ritual_abuse_in_The_Netherlands, which reproduced the deleted material from the SRA article. It seems that Crim1963 has a financial interest in maintaining this material on Wikipedia, and he is willing to conceal his identity, and ignore the concerns of other WP editors, in order to do so.

I think this is a clear-cut case of self-promotion and conflict of interest. What do administrators think? --Biaothanatoi 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked into the background of this case sufficiently to comment on the nature of Crim1963's contributions, but the article Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands sure comes across as original research and synthesis. We could AFD the article, but that wouldn't address the COI concerns. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• This whole situation seems to be related to Biaothanatoi's POV-pushing on Satanic ritual abuse and related articles. The overwhelming majority of criminologists and sociologists believe that "SRA" was almost entirely a myth, a moral panic in which numerous innocent people were swept up. A handful of psychiatrists disagree, and still believe that SRA is real. It is this minority POV that Biaothanatoi wants to dominate the article. An official FBI investigation in 1992 found that there was no reliable evidence of SRA; see [110]. The most definitive book on the subject, Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend, also rejects SRA. All that is left is a handful of fringe therapists. With the help of Abuse truth, an apparent single-purpose account, Biaothanatoi is trying to skew these articles towards his own perspective. He has, on occasion, engaged in ad hominem attacks both on sources and on other editors while so doing. Yes, this issue should definitely be investigated more thoroughly. *** Crotalus *** 04:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Crotalus, if you have concerns about "POV-pushing" at SRA, then please address them there. There are a number of editors engaged in developing and improving that article, and we represent a range of viewpoints on the subject. The concerns that you raise here have been addressed there by several editors, including myself, at length, in good faith, and to the satisfaction of other editors.

In contrast, to support of your own POV, you've misquoted the 1992 report, referred to a website whose authors misrepresent themselves as "consultants", pointed us to a fifteen-year-old book written by a board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, and engaged in a fruitless ad hominem attack of your own. You might find a more up-to-date resource online at this research paper on child sexual exploitation, including ritual abuse, by Professor Liz Kelly for the European Commission in 2000. The debate on ritual abuse has moved on since your sources were written in the early 1990s.

Beetstra has a clear financial and professional interest in posting material on Wikipedia in which he declares himself an "expert" and provides links to a website advertising his services. I'd appreciate it if administratives could look into this and take some action. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I do intend to address the POV-pushing on that article when I have more free time after final exams. As for your statements above:

Please explain how I have "misquoted" Lanning. Furthermore, if you argue that Lanning's work is outdated, then please cite a case after 1992 where the FBI took a case of "satanic ritual abuse" seriously.

Why should I care if Satanic Panic was written by "a board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation"? Furthermore, why is a 15-year-old book an inherently unreliable source on this subject?

Liz Kelly's paper, which you cited, does not contain the phrase "satanic ritual abuse." It does contain several discussions of sexual abuse in institutional settings, but these cases had corroborating evidence (unlike the American SRA craze) and they did not include allegations of satanic activity. If any ritual at all was involved in the abuse (which is not clear), it was probably Christian in nature (since much of it took place in Catholic group homes). If you want to make a separate page for "Institutional sexual abuse" or "Sexual abuse in Irish orphanages and group homes," go ahead. The page in question is titled "Satanic ritual abuse," and the professional consensus on that specific subject is that it is largely an urban myth.

If Beetstra's papers were published in reputable journals, and represent a mainstream view, then they may very well be reliable sources, regardless of who is adding them.

*** Crotalus *** 06:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Crotalus, this is not the place to have a debate about SRA. Needless to say, my own opinions on SRA are a little more complex then you appear to presume - I am not simply a "believer" in the subject matter, as a perusal of my userpage makes clear.

Kelly's report contians multiople references to "ritual abuse" and I suggest you read them and consider that the evidence base on ritualistic forms of child sexual assault may have developed somewhat in the fifteen years since your sources were published.

Please head over to Satanic Ritual Abuse and I'd be happy to discuss this further. As for Beestra/Crim1963's changes, he cites himself as an "expert" and links to a commercial website in which he offers his services. That looks COI to me. --Biaothanatoi 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Satanic ritual abuse" is poor English. They're abusing satanic rituals? Neil ☎ 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I agree that the assemblage of words is problematic, and that is discussed in the article at the moment. --Biaothanatoi 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a dumb phrase, but it is the phrase that was used very prominently to describe an alleged organized network of child rapists and child murderers possibly spanning the globe. I don't think it would be a bad idea to have articles on "Ritualistic child abuse" or "Organized child abuse rings", but we also need an article on the SRA moral panic. Part of this mess may be due to conflation of the two issues. <eleland/talkedits> 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I placed a NPOV tag on the page to indicate that the article was in dispute, and I also indicated on the talk page that I was looking for administrative advice on the article.

Criminologist1963 simply deleted the tag, and deleted my comments from the talk page. Not exactly a display of good faith or consensus building. Are administrators looking into this at all? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected the page to Satanic ritual abuse as a clear POV fork. Administrators are unlikely to intervene in what is clearly a content dispute, regardless of possibilities of COI. There is a COI noticeboard, not to mention normal dispute resolution processes. <eleland/talkedits> 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I came across this board first, but I then found the COI board and posted there. Navigating Wiki policy is not the easiest thing in the world.

This is not a "content dispute". The fact of the matter is that Beetstra appears to be using Wikipedia to advertise his services as an "expert witness" and this involves controlling certain blocks of text in which he describes himself as an "expert" and links to a website where he offers commercial services.

Please engage with issues raised by other editors in a manner which presumes good faith. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see where he has added an external link to his commercial website. He has cited the website for the line "According to criminologist Tjalling Beetstra, the similarities and differences ... United States and the Netherlands ... [affects how] societies have responded to satanic ritual abuse and other moral issues." Other citations appear to be to Beetstra published in scholarly journals, which is not necessarily illegitimate, especially given that he cited a large number of other authors. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. ((WP:NOR#Citingoneself)

One could argue that the very last line, citing Beetstra by name, fails NPOV. One would need to know how prominent is Beetstra's view in the context of Dutch SRA allegations - I certainly don't. In any case, the one line seems to make such an obvious point that I don't know why we need it to begin with. I do not see where COI guidelines have been breached, nor do I see a clear case of conflict of interest even if we grant that Criminologist and Beetstra are one and the same. Perhaps my review of the article history and Criminologist's contributions missed something. In that case, diffs might help me to find the problem. <eleland/talkedits> 18:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)