Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive205

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Spelling correction 2 Persistent addition of the exact same inappropriate comment to talk page 3 User:DeanHinnen again 4 "Fundamentalism" categories... 5 Personal attack 6 Stoic atarian 7 More petty harassment by SummerThunder 8 R68 (New York City Subway car) 9 Mike Huckabee 10 Erwin Raphael McManus 11 Deceptive AFD trick 12 IP dealings 13 Self-block Review 14 Repeated wikistalking 15 Undoing page move 16 Sock vandal 17 User:69.249.222.195 18 Suggesting indef block on User:Storm05 for continued image violations 19 Template:POTD 20 Slow revert war... 21 Hackersteve 22 WP:AIV 23 molecular gentic as "pseudoscience" 24 Need followup after checkuser 25 User Mikomouse 26 Shadow of the Colossus 27 Serbian languge 28 Jeffrey O. Gustafson? 28.1 Red Links 29 BLP block 30 User:Mtcupps and Derek Bell (baseball player) 31 IP-hopping vandalism 32 Jat Page - Vandalism and Removal of Dispute Tags 33 Users creating new policy pages 34 Stalking and harassment by User:BackMaun 35 Blanking and Removal of cited material 36 Zclark111 (talk · contribs) 37 Screen name1234: possible sockpuppet of Maleabroad 38 User:Nasz 39 Mike Krumlauf‎ 40 Need a little help 41 Great Deals -- Reborn 42 User:Fowler&fowler user:IP198 43 Need help at PlentyofFish 44 Obvious stalking sockpuppet 45 Saganet 46 User:NetOracle 47 User:Betacommand 47.1 Proposal 47.2 What WP:RFCN is really for 47.3 Is this resolved? 48 User:FlamingKC Vandalizing my profile, and harassing me 49 constant personal attacks despite my pleading to stop 50 dummy account, for vandalism only, with my username 51 Olir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

[edit] Spelling correction

It's "automatically", not "automagically" at the bottom of this page header. I'd correct it myself, but apparently it's restricted to admins.  :) YechielMan 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

But automagically is cooler. :( Okay, maybe it's unprofessional. I like it, it's a harmless bit of fun on a board that's otherwise all vitriol and anger. Others might not see it that way. Discuss? Or perhaps move this to talk? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I also believe its harmless and quite appropriate. See Wiktionary's definition for more details: (Automagical on Wiktionary). It sums up the process very nicely.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it that time again? Endorse "automagically", same as last time. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as usual. Can we link to the myriad other times this has been brought up? Should we add this to a FAQ somewhere? is it on the template talk page? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No opinion, but is has been there a long time. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse change to automatically. Prefer professionalism over idiosyncracy. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• I know what the term means, but non-computer-programmers might not ;). So either change to "automatically", or link to the Wikitionary definition of "automagically". Yuser31415 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• For those without a sense of humour in language, it’s a technical term. Yes, seriously. Link to wikt:automagically, if necessary… —xyzzy_n 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have linked to wiktionary and removed the ugly "u title" spoof. A direct link is easier than a hover. Teke ^(talk) 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse automaGically. If it's proper enough English for Mr. Darcy, shouldn't it be proper enough for Wikipedia? | Mr. Darcy talk 21:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse automagically: All professionalism and no quirk makes Wiki a dull project —Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-21 08:53Z
• Change to automatically. Not only is 'automagically' unprofessional, describing it as automagical is inaccurate (I see no element of stage magic), and just makes us look like smartasses. And not in a cool kind of way, more of a geeky, smug way. Automatic is not only a proper word, rather than a made up neologism, it accurately describes the action of replacing the tildes with a signature. Proto ► 10:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is hinging their opinion of Wikipedia's professionalism on automagically vs. automatically. And ultimately, this is not a professional project. It's done by random folks essentially wandering in off the street. That's the point, and it's not a bad thing.

—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-22 00:48Z

• Endorse automagically, given that it is a real term, which I did not know before, should be linked to here. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse automagically, this is silly. "Automagically" is not that uncommon a term, and needlessly changing spellings is generally not a good thing. Besides that, I think it lends an air of friendliness to the page. The Wikipedia may be serious business, but it doesn't have to be cold and sterile. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent addition of the exact same inappropriate comment to talk page

On Talk:Bridge to Terabithia the same inappropriate and offensive comment as been repeatedly added since August 2006. Numerous attempts to delete. The comment refers to a real-life dead child and is irrelevant to the talk page. The comment is exactly the same word for word in each case but added by several user IP and usernames ( sockpuppet?) Starting with the latest

As User:136.150.200.99 [1]

As User:136.150.200.100 [2]

As User:136.150.200.99 again [3] [4]

As User:24.29.74.132 [5] [6] [7]

As User:There is more to the world than meets the eye [8] [9]

As User:136.150.200.99 again [10]

As User:24.29.37.46 [11] [12]

What to do about a case like this? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I take it reversion isn't stopping the repeated addition? What about leaving it in place, once, with the comment "this is irrelevant". The comment is certainly out of left field, but it seems more or less harmless. Perhaps this poster would be satisfied by having it on the talk page (and if it is subsequently otherwise ignored, the poster will have their answer... no one takes it seriously). I dunno if that idea helps or not. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your idea helps. Next time I probably will leave it in place with a comment. But it is offensive enough that someone else will delete it. (I'm just the latest who has warned the user on the user's latest talk page. Other users have posted similar warnings on all the other talk pages.) Anyway, it is strange ... but I've seen weirder on WP. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:DeanHinnen again

DeanHinnen (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) wants the previously-rejected Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises legislated into policy by ArbCom or any other means. He has WP:CANVASSed a large number of users about this (see his contribs), but (amazingly) the list does not include most of the participants in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. Can't imagine why.

I am strongly minded to wield the WP:TROUT. Spamming for support for elevation to policy of a rejected proposal that would allow you greater leeway to pursue an acknowledged conflict of interest, during the progress of a related ArbCom case, looks very much like problem behaviour to me. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours to give us time to talk about this without him continuing his completely unacceptable talk page spamming. I'll unblock him if he agrees to stop. Nandesuka 14:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair. A problem edit: [13]. You'll never guess which "notable recent case" this was. Oh, you guessed. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that sending messages to 12 users' talk pages justifies a 48 hour block. This is the first time that he has done this kind of spamming, and may not be aware of the policy. I think that Nandesuka should reconsider and instead give him a warning that includes a reference to the WP policy that he has broken.--rogerd 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat sympathetic to Dean's underlying point -- that articles about enterprises can result in some of the same problems as articles about living persons. (Not, IMHO, all of the same problems, though). Unfortunately, Dean's tiger-ish approach to persuading the community isn't doing him any good. His point is interesting and deserves to be presented by the community, but it would benefit by being taken up by a patient, experienced editor. If I had the time, I would offer to take on an advocacy for Dean, but I don't, so I don't really have a solution. TheronJ 14:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Feh, Dean's underlying point is that he should be allowed to remove material even though his rationale for doing so violates WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS and his actions in doing so violate WP:COI. To assume anything else would be naive, as evidence the diff I posted above. When you have prolific sockpuppeteers in play, the best solution is probably just to lock the article or WP:OFFICE it. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• From a cursory perusal of the history of this user's pattern of editing, seems like he is trying to game the system... Smee 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

DeanHinnen agreed to stop engaging in spamming and other disruptive activity. I am therefore unblocking him. I have warned him that if he engages in any further disruption, he will be blocked again. Nandesuka 15:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I was "paging" people who have already participated in a discussion about a proposed change in Wikipedia policy. I announced what I believed to be the consensus of opinion in that discussion, and asked them for further feedback if they choose to provide it. I cannot think of a more worthwhile purpose for what you describe as "spam." Nevertheless, as I promised, I will stop it instantly.

Did any of the recipients of this "spam" complain about it? No, they did not. Who complained about it? Why, it was JzG. Imagine that. Are there any other secret rules that I don't know about and will be blocked instantly if I break them? Dino 15:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dean, JzG is not the only person here who objects to your actions. He's been more than fair with you (and everybody else in this mess) so far. --BenBurch 15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dino, here's the secret rule you keep breaking: don't be a dick. Hope this helps, Guy (Help!) 15:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Physicians, heal thyselves. Dino 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we'll block the lot of you and heal the project just nicely. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Play nice. Dean, this is against established WP policy. Internal spamming for support on stuff is not ok. One or two editors, who you know are interested in something, is not spamming, but 12 is too many. Georgewilliamherbert 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Fundamentalism" categories...

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but could somebody competent look into the activities of Chsbcgs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). It's not exactly vandalism, but he has been warned by an admin, and his recent activities I don't understand, especially his focus on dubious categories, which he creates and adds to articles without discussion, almost all his edits seem to contain the word "fundamentalism" and that's what concerns me; but he has some useful edits, so please look into this! Thanks! --Merzul 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Category:Criticisms of Fundamentalism is ludicrous. Fundamental Islam? Christianity? Protestant Christianity? Mormonism? And Category:Religion shouldn't be a sub-category of Category:Atheism. --BigDT 21:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

About this Category:Criticisms of Fundamentalism, I speculate that the intention is to put books critical of religion and books written by religious authors against fundamentalism into the same category; thereby implying, as critics have, that Dawkins et al. misrepresent "true" religion. After some thinking, I removed The God Delusion from this category because it's notability rests on his attack of moderate religion. In any case, I don't think this is a very neutral use of categories and this users talk page makes me worry because he should already be quite aware that categories shouldn't be used like this. --Merzul 21:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But there isn't any one fundamentalism. That would be like having Category:Criticism of companies that sell purple things. --BigDT 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

John Smith's said the following about me on his Talk page:

Lol, what - you'd prefer to maintain a misunderstanding between us? Maybe you could do with seeing a psychiatrist. You obviously have issues that need to be addressed. John Smith's 11:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he crossed the line in implying that I am mentally unstable and should seek help. This is not only rude, but totally inappropriate.--Sir Edgar 23:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are big enough to rise above this my friend. 4kinnel 20:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... civility's being stretched a little on both sides. Fortunately, now's the time for both of you to back off and disengage for a bit before things escalate (see above thread). MastCell 01:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stoic atarian

I protected User:Stoic atarian talk page for continuing to blank warnings, calling it vandalism. He was blocked for 24 hours for dispution because as well by Blnguyen. Just giving an heads up as my protection is likely conterversal. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC) _{Subscript text}

[edit] More petty harassment by SummerThunder

Some fresh socks of SummerThunder are at it again. It started ~8 hours ago with corrupting SummerThunder sockpuppet tags to point to his "enemies", in this case me and Jujube. Please see 71.156.39.30 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log), 61.78.147.15 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log), and JuJvbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (note spelling). I've reported these various to WP:AIV and requested some talk page protections, but I'm posting here too because I need to go to work and would appreciate it if someone would keep an eye on it for a bit. Thanks. —Dgies^t c 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I handled some of these this morning; haven't seen any, for a bit, but I just got back online. Let me know if you spot anything, or report to AIV (as you probably know, I watch it). – Luna Santin (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay my first wikigrudge! ^_^ JuJube 06:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R68 (New York City Subway car)

I'm not sure exactly what's going on here. One editor and his sockpuppets insists on reverting to a previous version, while several others continue to revert. Some of the information being re-added may be good, while some may be wrong or unverifiable. It's certainly unreferenced, but so is the whole article. This has been going on for months. --NE2 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I just spent a few minutes trying to figure this out and couldn't tell either. At first blush it doesn't look like pure vandalism on either side, since each version includes seemingly reasonable information the other omits. There is commentary in the edit summaries, but it's not very enlightening, and the talkpage is completely empty except for tags. Can anyone else figure this out or maybe someone involved in a relevant project can take a look at it. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope no one minds, but I hit the page, looked through it, and hit the talk page. perhaps a debate moderator role is needed, and I jumped in. If this is some sort of wiki-nono, then I'll back off, but I think a little conversation's the first step. I've also notified all the editors who seem actively involved and who edited in the last 3 or 4 days. ThuranX 03:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Huckabee

(This was posted here before(around 5, Eastern standard time), but due to an edit conflict and some cut n paste oopses of my own, got prematurely archived. I'm reposting now.) I'm coming here now (Most of the following was previously posted at another admin's page in hopes he could look things over, but he hasn't). There is a ridiculous problem I'm finding at the Mike Huckabee page. HI, I know you're a busy admin, but I'm bringing this problem to you as as result of your established experience with the subject. User:A.J.A. has been involved in a long-running tendentious editing content dispute[14] over at Mike Huckabee. Both myself(my political views are my own) and a self-declared Republican, User:ai.kefu[15], have been lobbying (pardon the pun), to keep in a section of Criticism regarding the West Memphis 3, and Huckabee's involvements, or lack thereof. A.J.A. initially objected on grounds of NPOV[16], where he announced his biases, and lack of citation[17]. The section was reworked and citations found. He then engaged in removals citing lack of notability[18]. ai.kefu wrote a lengthy reply on the hucakbee talk page[19], and A.J.A.'s response was to 'dismiss it'[20], in his own words. He maintains a version of the article on his own talk page in which much of the criticism is conspicuously absent, User:A.J.A./Tohu&Bohu/Huckabee, and it appears he has no intentions of ever standing down on this, no matter what sources, style of writing, or what-have-you is done. In the past couple days, this has ramped up severely. He is now on my talk page asserting that by callign his undiscussed repeated removals 'blanking vandalism' i've horribly insulted him. He's now nearly obsessed with seeing me completely apologize for all my comments suggesting he should elaborate on his thinking, all my referrals to his undiscussed actions as hostile, incivil, and then vandalism. When he was talking, it waas one thing, we could try to work it out. But his explanations got fewer and fewer, his reversions and removals more and more frequent, and after a while, it passed from content dispute to edit warring, and now it's really hitting incivility and vandalism. I'd appreciate some other editors looking into this. I'm going to leave the page alone for 24 hours for review. Thank you all. ThuranX 03:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erwin Raphael McManus

Multiple users keep reverting to a critical version that links to a bunch of attack blogs and removing the cleanup tags. I don't know who this guy is (just came across it a week or so ago on recent-changes patrol), and frankly don't care if his page is positive or negative, but by WP:BLP we can't have a negative bio that sources its info only from blogs. I've protected it as an interim measure, but I think User:MOPmember and User:ErwinMc should be blocked. I'd do it myself but since I've been involved in this page it would be cleaner if someone else did it. --Delirium 04:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deceptive AFD trick

I just say a nasty little trick that users do to make sure that their content stays on Wikipedia] despite a successful AFD. This particular user User:DJ BatWave [21] moved the article 6 or 7 times making the history obsured throughout many pages. After a successful AFD for the article Cody Runnels and Shawn Spears, a second copy existed at Runnels & Spears and he simply moved that over the old history, getting rid of the evidence of a prior AFD and my edits to the page completly. This is highly inappropriate and I hope someone actually watches DJ Batwave before he does that anymore. PS> (Pardon the WP:BEANS) — Moe 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's really easy to G4 that, so I don't see how it's so nasty. And I'm not entirely sure why we would assume that he deliberately did the pagemoves a month before in case of an AfD. -Amarkov moo! 06:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so he managed to destroy my assumption of good faith with his "how dare you delete my article, no true article should be deleted". -Amarkov moo! 06:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. — Moe 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and it was a particulary sticky situation because he made it seem like it hadn't been deleted, the article history dated back to early January and the deletion by Mailer Diablo was in February. It was weird because I didn't see the history of me adding the AFD notice or anything and there was history a month before untouched. It was all rather confusing. — Moe 06:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP dealings

For the past two months I have been dealing with 74.195.3.199 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (who also edits under the name Boukenger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log); for the purposes of this post, he will be referred to as Rocky, his self-released name). Generally, Rocky leaves comments on talk pages for a handful of articles that I watchlist, and they mostly deal with information that cannot be accurately or reliably sourced. Occasionally, he makes personal attacks against other users who discuss things with him. Because of Rocky's actions, his user talks are full of warnings against WP:CRYSTAL and WP:CIVIL. His offtopic semi-attacks are often removed from the talk pages by other editors. However, within the past 24 hours, this comment was removed, but was replaced by this. I removed it with this edit summary. That was met with this. Right now, I don't think I should block Rocky, again, for repeat offenses (that and it's nearing 4 am), but his actions need to be discussed elsewhere.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-block Review

I recently blocked the user User:Melonbarmonster for WP:NPA violation. He had been in an edit conflict with another user on the Karate article and was in danger of breaching WP:3rr. So I sent the user a friendly warning regarding the policy. [22] The user responded with the following comment on my talk page:

Please keep your "warnings" to yourself from now on. I have a right to make good faith edits without having it unilateral reverted by a single over-zealous editor. At least be fair in your "warnings" and give the instigator the same warning to at least give off the perception of objectivity for goodness sakes.Melonbarmonster 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [23]

I then went to the user's talk page to tell him that WP:NPA was a blockable offense. He responded with the following comment on my talk page:

Yeah that's quite laughable. You need to count correctly and learn how to use the history page correctly. As the instigator of the revert the other guy would have to violate the 3rr before I would be faced the the decision of passing the 3 mark. Please take your POV crap elsewhere.Melonbarmonster 13:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [24]

After this comment I blocked the user for 24 hours. Considering that the comments were made towards me personally I would like to see if I have confirmation for my actions by the rest of the community. Thanks.--Jersey Devil 14:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Calling you an involved party would be wikilawyering. Valid block. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Bad block. Sorry. I agree with Nick that insulting you does not make you "involved", but personal attacks are not blockable offenses, except in prolonged cases and certain kinds of threats. Please read WP:NPA carefully. Melonbarmonster seems to be engaged in soapboxing [25], but some guidance would have been better than blocking. I have protected the article for 7 days; the parties should seek outside review of their content dispute. Thatcher131 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

“	This stuff is a good example of where people have been wanting to go. By continually treating WP:NPA as if it said that "personal attacks" result in blocks, we have made over half the threads on AN/I about "I got insulted! I got attacked! I want him or her blocked!" If that weren't enough, we're sitting right in the middle of a pile of "could it conceivably be interpreted as hostile in any way, and, if so, can I possibly block?" So we get brush-offs as attacks, attacks as threats, and then blocks for content disputes and because someone said (past tense) a thing. Oh, happy! Troll heaven! We can bring all editing to a halt by going to AN/I, claiming to be intimidated, and then getting blocks thrown.	”
—Geogre

• Nope The thing is that User:Melonbarmonster is right in mentioning that the other involved party User:RogueNinja didn't receive any note whatsoever. Both parties were engaged in edit warring. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I guess Thatcher is right. The other party might as well be investigated. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, this was not a good block. Remove the post as trolling, if you like, but its not a blockable offence. Kudos for realizing this might not be the best judgment and bringing it here for review, btw. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just unblocked the account according to comments above. Feel free to review it as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued attacks against an IP user:

Congrats on your google skills in digging comments I made on a different website. Rabid racism is also a minority view as well neo-nazism, beastiality, etc.. Crawl back into your black van.Melonbarmonster 21:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [26]

Also removed my 3rr warning. [27] --Jersey Devil 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h for personal attacks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated wikistalking

I have repeatedly complained about User:Aaliyah Stevens' wikistalking me. Today is the fourth instance of following me page by page, either reverting my edits or adding erroneous TotallyDisputed templates. In two or three of the edits she correctly enforces WP:WTA, but for the most part she just harasses me.

First instance of wikistalking on January 10, 2007:

• I edit Al Muhajiroun, she then posts erroneous fact templates.[28]
• I edit Terrorism in Kazakhstan, she removes referenced content.[29]
• I edit Jama'at al-Jihad al-Islami, she posts erroneous fact templates.[30]
• She contacts SlimVirgin and lists all of my recent edits with an amazing display of incivility.[31]

Second instance of wikistalking on January 18, 2007:

• I edit Terrorism in the United Kingdom, so she does[32]
• I edit 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, so she does[33]
• I edit Salma Yaqoob, so she does[34]

Third instance of wikistalking on February 7, 2007:

• I edit Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan, so she blanks the page and redirects it.[35]
• I edit Terrorism in Kazakhstan so she adds an erroneous TotallyDisputed template. Notice all content is referenced.[36]
• I edit New Great Game, so she adds erroneous fact templates. Notice everything is sourced.[37]
• I edit Ahmed Rashid, so she does[38]
• I am in a dispute on Battle of Najaf (2007), so she gets involved in the dispute in an attempt to intimidate me[39]
• She reverts my edits to all of the above pages on February 8 in addition to Omar Bakri Muhammad minutes after I edited the page[40] and Mohammad Naseem, adding erroneous fact templates[41] minutes after I edited
• She posts a list of all the pages I have edited where she has subsequently harassed me, [42] with a highly uncivil message. She then reposts the message on SlimVirgin's talkpage[43]. Notice: "He seems to be on a mission to poison wikipedia content for his obsession with labelling."

Fourth instance of wikistalking on February 21, 2007:

• I edit Pan-Islamism so she adds an erroneous TotallyDisputed template and inserts her pov[44]

Valid reversion, the source does not back the claim. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I edit Abdul Rahman al-Barak so she posts a derogatory term for Salafis[45]

Use of Wahhabism appears valid in context, a large number of sources identify Abdul Rahman al-Barak as a leading Wahabi cleric.

• I edit Terrorism in Malaysia so she removes content[46]

Valid reversion, YouTube reference is (a) original research, (b) copyvio and (c) not a reliable source, it's docu-drama. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An administrator needs to tell her this behavior is unacceptable because so far she has not gotten the message. KazakhPol 22:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would caution you to stop making POV and questionable edits. Dispute resolution is second on the left down the hall. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KazakhPol where the issue of KazakhPol's editing is under the microscope. In a nutshell, all and sundry are being labelled "terrorists" using questionable judgment. And these edits are coming in thick and fast. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that someone has taken the trouble to go through KazakhPol's contributions to try and unravel this potentially horrendous backlog of soupy smears. I recommend that amateur WP:V and WP:RS sleuths take an interest in the ongoing proceedings, with their notebooks at the ready. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undoing page move

I find a vandal has renamed a page Issaquah Middle School is now Issaquah Middel Skool for failures~!. I don't seem to be able to reverse this without administrator assistance, but please let me know if there was a better way to deal with this. Notinasnaid 09:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with. User blocked. Collect your $200.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, {{db-move|place where the page is}} on the location where the page ought to be would be the tag-based way to do it; I'm not sure whether that would be a better or worse way to attract admin attention. Probably worse, because CSD is normally more backlogged than ANI. --ais523 09:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves: WP:RM. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a follow-up question. I can see the user is indeed blocked [47], but I can see nothing on the user talk page. Is this normal, as I do sometimes see this? I ask because I have in the past made the mistake of requesting a block for a user who, as it turns out, was already blocked. Notinasnaid 09:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The talk page message will only come up if the blocking administrator adds one (they have templates like {{subst:test5}} for the purpose). --ais523 09:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You can check whether a user is blocked by going on his or her userpage and clicking "block log." It will list whether the user is (or ever was) blocked, by whom, for how long, and why. Newyorkbrad 12:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock vandal

Apparently, there's a guy who's threatening to create a bunch of sockpuppets and vandalize, per a rather odd message on User talk:Seraphimblade#User:Furverts. He appears to be making good on that so far, not sure what the usual procedure is there, but something to keep an eye on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.249.222.195

I'm posting this here instead of WP:AIV as the user appears to have gone offline and is done editing for the day. A quick look at the edits of 69.249.222.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) will show a pattern of vandalism over the last several days. Is it appropriate to block this address and leave account creation enabled, so that it would only be able to be used by registered users, please? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• You don't need account creation enabled to do that. Just use "block anonymous users only". If you do that and block account creation, the vandal can't get in. It may inflict some damage on other unregistered users from that address though, but I think that allowing creation would simply lead to them creating an account. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, well, I'm just looking to stop the vandalism with as little collateral damage as necessary. Can someone please do this? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, MGM. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggesting indef block on User:Storm05 for continued image violations

I think this problem has gotten to a point where Storm05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is no longer capable of making smart decisions when it comes to images. Please have a look at his talk page (as of 12:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)) and this talk archive - many, many warnings, both from bots and humans, about images - lack of sourcing, imagevios, fair use violations, intentional mislicensing of images.

What has prompted me to bring this here, though, after so many months, is that even though we've tried to drill it into his head (not using templatised messages), he still continues to say he's right, totally ignoring valid concerns, and at the same time behaving incivilly - answering every warning he's given with "Wrong." or "Incorrect." when it's obvious he's in the wrong, and just looking for some way out. Are we really going to allow users to get through loopholes in unclear situations?

This user generally is not a net positive to the project - he's been caught adding copyright violations to articles and has been blocked previously for ignoring consensus after SIX warnings to him, over a period of a few weeks, but he continued disrupting against consensus.

His Wikipedia-space edits to XFD are totally to say "delete per WP:NOT" etc, and then with no clear need for it, tags articles already at AFD {{hoax}}. He has also twice in the past been warned for canvassing at AFD (both AFDs were against his own articles, one of which was no consensus and the other a delete).

Is there any reason such a user is still on Wikipedia? Are we going to keep him around until he gets the foundation sued, because he DELIBERATELY mis-licenses his images when he's already been told time and time again that he cannot do so?

I think it's time that he be indef'd, and I think it would be a preventative block. I welcome input, although it is my opinion that such users are a detriment to the project.

– Chacor 12:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The user continues to upload questionable images (including one I just tagged {{wronglicense}}). I think we may need a preventative block (even if a short one) soon. – Chacor 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet another potentially problematic upload. This seems to stem from him thinking "anything on an NOAA US Govt. page is PD", which, as he's been told countless times, is not necessarily the case, but he won't listen. – Chacor 15:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

48h is enough for this time. We'll see if that would help. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I have a feeling he'll say he won't do it again, get unblocked, then continue to do it. Sorry, but I really can't AGF with such a user. – Chacor 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A possible further violation would result in a harsher block. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

True, fair enough. Thanks [for now], we'll see how it goes. – Chacor 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:POTD

Transcluded vandalism I can't track down. Noclip 15:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slow revert war...

...at Fräulein. Anonymous editor keeps reverting to biased version under different IP adresses. Warnings without effect. Watchlisting article / blocking IPs might work, perhaps even semiprotect. Thanks. Kosebamse 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hackersteve

User:Hackersteve has been adding "hacking instructions" that appear to be an attempt to harvest passwords. (That is, anyone foolish enough to follow them would be e-mailing their password to an e-mail address he presumably controls.) The new articles he created have already been tagged for speedy by User:Qxz, but can his edits to Hack and Hacking also be removed from article history? —Celithemis 08:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why that's really necessary - the old revisions aren't visible unless you're specifically looking for them, and deleting revisions from large articles is (from what I understand) kind of a pain, particularly for articles with lots of revisions. (IMHO: If anyone decides to dig it up and follow the instructions, they deserve what they get anyway.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the heck of it, I've given him a selection of usernames and passwords to play with. --Carnildo 09:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

His articles were quickly deleted and he's been indef blocked --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Wikiload (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) a few days ago after he wrote basically the same article and made a report to gmail abuse (his article was phishing for gmail password). We may want to ask for a checkuser to find and block any other names this individual has + the IP. --BigDT 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we have to oversight things like this even though they might not work? x42bn6 Talk 12:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

MIGHT not work? All that is going on there is that he registered thexxwhateverxxserver@yahoo address and makes other little kids who want to call themselves hackers send him their passwords. For the love of god, you dont send javascript commands through an email. Thats not how things work.. Hes a 12 year old kid who thinka that this makes him "l33t" or some crap. He can call himself a hacker all he wants, untill he can bang out an actual executable program on a PDP-10, hes just a kid who wants his friends to think he's cool. No oversight needed, fer' chrissakes. -M^ask 15:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Then even worse - he could well use this diff to grab passwords and hide behind the claims "Wikipedia says so!" x42bn6 Talk 17:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no its not. No one who's technically savvy enough to dig through previous revisions is not going to be retarded enough to go through with it. And if they are, well, its a Darwinian process at its best. -M^ask 20:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's about the same level as saying "Your money is on fire! Quick give it to me!" ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

If anyone's available to check this, that would be great, it's quite badly backlogged and several vandals are still going merrily along. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Clear now, so thanks to whoever got there before I did. Newyorkbrad 18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] molecular gentic as "pseudoscience"

2 minutes after I added refernces to PNAS.

this happened wirh comment (rv pseudoscience).

Nasz 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute. Try to use the article talpage. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Refer to wp:dispute resolution for some advice on how to handle this. As FayssalF said, the first thing to do is discuss it on the article's talk page. — coelacan talk — 19:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

not so much a content dispute as a case of trolling and/or surrealism (adding gibberish to articles isn't a "content dispute"). See Nasz' talk history (he keeps blanking his talkpage) for my string of warnings. In my book, any further prancing around of this sort will lead to blocks. dab (𒁳) 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need followup after checkuser

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Somethingoranother

User:Somethingoranother was blocked for 48 hours for 3RR violation at 02:34 on February 19, 2007. A number of IP accounts and two sleeper accounts then revert warred on and vandalised the United Kingdom article with increasing frequency until 04:54, February 20, 2007. Those accounts have now been confirmed by the above checkuser request to have been sockpuppets of User:Somethingoranother. Could an admin take appropriate action as regards this proxy vandalism and block evasion? WjBscribe 10:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• The addition they are trying to make appears to be cited and in good faith. I would try telling them it is a duplicated effort with the existing section on their talk page (which is easier to notice than edit summaries). I've protected the article because it still suffered edit warring. _ Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  Oops, I realise now that I caused some confusion by the fact I originally titled this "follow up from checkuser". To clarify, no action has yet been taken as regards Essjay's findings (ignore my follow-up request). WjBscribe 13:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Its the repeated deletions that were the concern: e.g. [48], [49], [50]. Nevermind the fact that the sockpuppeteer avoided his block by editing via a number of sockpuppets. A further block is surely required? WjBscribe 12:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, following on from his deletions, edit warring and sockpuppetry, I was also concerned by this latest round of reversions, this time it was his odd insistence that "his" edits must remain, regardless of the fact that a (better written) sentence to the same effect exists two paragraphs later. ie it wasn't about truth and references, it was that his dogged determination to include showed he was in fact acting in bad faith. Gsd2000 00:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Mikomouse

Don't know how admins would deal with this, so I might as well report this. User Mikomouse added the sprotected template on the List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN article even though the page itself was not placed under protection/semiprotection by an admin. It turns out that this user noticed that the article about a rival station (List of programs broadcast by GMA Network) and thought that he could do the same for the ABS article. The unauthorized placing of this template has since been removed (by another user), and I placed a user warning on this user's talk page. --- Tito Pao 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This kind of thing can happen as an honest mistake by inexperienced users who think an article needs protection and don't realize they can't do it themselves. The user needs to have this explained, but I don't think the {{uw-vandalism2}} template that you left is going to assist comprehension. I'm going to remove it and give an explanation. Of course, if it keeps happening after this explanation, then you can simply pursue it by normal WP:AIV means. — coelacan talk — 19:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That makes more sense. Thanks for the heads up :) --- Tito Pao 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow of the Colossus

There is a grotesque image being displayed on top of this article (as if it were overlayed). I cannot find where it is coming from, so some help would be appreciated. (jarbarf) 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Image deleted and the uploader has been blocked indef. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, how annoying. I had to compare three different articles to find which template was in common. What I want to know is why the template which was directly affected was not showing up in the whatlinkshere page. (jarbarf) 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

{{MusicBrainz_album}}. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, eventually I found it (ten minutes later), but I am asking why it did not list that template under the whatlinkshere page. (jarbarf) 19:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mystery of the wiki. You'll probably have better luck with this method: when you're editing a page, scroll way down to the bottom, and you should see a list of all the templates currently being transcluded (as well as their respective protection levels, if any). If memory serves, this should also include metatemplates. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, I see one two transcluded templates which are not protected. Corvus cornix 21:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Some sort of protection bot would come in handy at times like these... Christopher Parham (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian languge

There's a very passionate user, User:Luzzifer, who keeps reverting structural changes without really understanding why they're being changed in the first place, mostly through an IP account. The revert war has primarily been between me and him, but the rather innocuous changes he is aggressively disputing are standard language article structure and has received support from one other user already. I've made an attempt to attract some attention through an RfC, but without any results. Is this an admin issue or not?

Peter ^Isotalo 21:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is a disagreement over article content and/or structure, then it's a content dispute and not an admin intervention issue. If he/she appears to be violating Wikipedia guidelines (3 reverts, personal/legal attacks or threats, vandalism, spamming, etc) then it's appropriate to bring to this forum. Cla68 23:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

Hello. I opened an ANI inquery into the actions of Admin Jeffrey O. Gustafson, with a lot of details provided. It has since been removed and I have not been informed of the result. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Captain Barrett 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the top of this page very carefully, and you will soon know why there were no "results". - WeniWidiWiki 02:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, which section are you referring to please? On my previous post I did add "diff's" and did everything which was recommended to me. Captain Barrett 18:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

He might be referring to this part:

Dispute resolution: This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process.

If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here. But this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration.

If no one acted on your request it's possible that no admin felt there was anything actionable under the charter of AN/I. That's just a guess, I didn't read the original entry. Hope it helps, though. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, an Admin made a polite recommendation to Jeffrey to Recuse himself from a contentious AfD we are involved in, but that is all. Also he has not recused himself yet, still very active. Captain Barrett 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Links

(refactor)

Note this this user has no user page. Axiomm 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's because he himself deletes it from time to time. Rightly or wrongly, admins do sometimes do that. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

From time to time? It's been redlinked consistently since May '06. The only reason the log is so bloody large is because I keep having to redelete vandals and well meaning fools. And nothing says I have to have a user page either, rightly or wrongly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just explaining for the user asking, why you don't have a user page. From time to time is a generic term that certainly encompasses "often". I did not comment on whether you should or should not have a user page in answering the question. Sorry if I gave offense, it was not intentional. But now that you mention it, while I agree there is no firm requirement, I do think it's reasonable to expect an admin to have something on their user page, however small, that users can find when they have questions, rather than being redlinked, and the user's remark that one wasn't there seemed reasonable to me. That's just my opinion, I'm not claiming it is a generally held sentiment. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I wasn't offended. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Having a redlink userpage instead of a redirect to one's user talk page is pretty much done just to annoy people, much like voting oppose in every RfA and so on, but there's no actual policy against it... so he can continue, if he really likes annoying half of Wikipedia over something so petty. --W.marsh 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try to maintain some semblance of civility. I honestly couldn't care less about whether he has a user page or not, but that comment was over the line. Ral315 » 23:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying "he's being annoying" isn't incivil, especially if the claim is supported, which it was. --W.marsh 23:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's uncivil. Actually, I think it's pretty accurate. Why can't he just have his user page being a redirect to his talk page? The redlink is just annoying and makes it harder to contact him. --Cyde Weys 02:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I my redlink is not to intentionally antagonize or annoy people, and I take offense at that. Second, I have never bought into the ridiculous claim that it makes it "harder" to contact me. Honestly, two clicks instead of one (and just one click if you're savvy)? While we do have our share of idiots, most Wikipedians are not as lazy or stupid as you seem to think. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want people to stop ascribing your actions to malice, perhaps you could stop referring to fellow editors as "fools" and "idiots."

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer to maintain this red link? You're entitled to, but why is this something that you want? —David Levy 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not the biggest deal in the galaxy, but I have always considered maintaining one's username as a redlink to be inappropriate for an administrator. Newyorkbrad 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why, if I may ask? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It serves no useful purpose to not have one, and it makes you less approachable for many users. I know I often check out userpages before leaving messages, and I rather doubt I'm the only one. While you're not required to have one, I do remember your personal policy statement that we should stick to best practices at all times, even when it's not mandatory, or something to that effect.

That said, oddly, I support Jeff's desire/right/privilege/whatever to have the thing redlinked. I've certainly defended having a transcluded .sig for quite some time (including to the developer that wrote the code to prevent people from doing that), which some people find annoying, and I think the instant matter is a good example of why everything not mandatory is not prohibited.

—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-21 09:51Z

In answer to Jeffrey's question "why?": (1) because it's distracting to have completely unnecessary redlinks (the least important reason, but still true), (2) because it suggests (incorrectly in your case, to be sure) that the user has not yet fully engaged with the community, and (3) because it misleads people not familiar with you into underestimating your role on the project. The latter concern is not a purely theoretical one, I will add, although it is complicated to capture just how without violating the "all contributors are equal" ethos we rightly have here. A couple of months ago, in discussion of one of the controversial Philwelch blocks which occurred at a time when he had a deleted userpage and a redlinked username, it turned out that Phil had tried to explain policy on something to the editor, and the editor had disregarded the explanation because, in substance, he assumed that anyone too inexperienced to have created their userpage yet was unlikely to be a fount of policy experience and advice. The editor indicated that had he realized the person making suggestions was an experienced editor and admin (the former being as important as the latter, really), he would have reacted very differently. So other than being different for the sake of being different, why do it? Newyorkbrad 11:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For me, it basically boils down to the fact that he's doing something that people are saying "Hey, this annoys me" and it wouldn't effect him to change it or let someone change it, but he says "No, you can't make me, I am going to continue annoying you because I can." And yeah, he can. We all could do a lot of things that annoy eachother but aren't technically against any rule. Thankfully, most of us don't. --W.marsh 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, you blindly misinterpret my intentions. It should be reminded that everyone has the right to have (almost) anything in their user space deleted. I can because we all have that right, not just because I have the ability to. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In spite of the fact Jeff (inappropriately) supported a ban on me (probably didn't read all the facts) -AND in spite of the fact that he reverted that "you all need to get a job" comment just a few minutes ago (a perfectly legitimate, if slightly insulting comment) -I support his desire to use his User Page in whatever way he wants -so long as, like, he isn't threatening, cussing, or slandering. You people all need to get a life -and leave Jeff alone- duuuude! Talk about a major waste of time on such an unimportant matter- man oh man...--GordonWatts 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think less focus on your "rights" and more focus on what's best for the project would be appropriate here. Friday (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What's best for the Project? Good grief! Having a userpage is no more beneficial to the goals of the Project than not having one is harmful. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you not read any of the discussion above, then? Turn it into a redirect, already. What possible advantage is there in not doing so? Friday (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

When there is no explicit harm or benefit, then what I desire to do with my user space takes precedence over the personal tastes of others. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is explicit harm: this annoys people and makes it slightly more difficult to contact you. There would be explicit benefits: it would stop annoying people and make it slightly easier to contact you. You're under no obligation to create a redirect to your talk page, but I wonder why you choose to exercise this particular right. —David Levy 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what I said? I never disputed that you had the right to do it... it's that many people have come to you and said it annoys them, and you won't change it. You don't care that you're annoying a lot of good editors. If you're going to do that, I have "the right" to point it out. --W.marsh 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think he has the right to not have a user page, which includes not having a redirect to the talk page as a user page. But why not just have the link in the signature be to the talk page instead of the redlinked user page? Unless the intent is to show people that there is no user page. Leebo⁸⁶ 16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm suddenly tempted to delete my own userpage, except it would have the confusing side effect of improving Wikipedia's aesthetics. Even some arbcom members have pretty red links. A userpage is an editor's expression of his or her currently preferred Wikipedia personality. Sometimes editors prefer that to be a tabula rasa: "make of me exactly what you will"; or, alternately, "My edits stand on their own". Or possibly, "you people have nitpicked my userpage sufficiently that I'm not going to bother having one." Given the way self-expression on user pages is over-scrutinized here, I can understand that point of view. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A redirect to one's user talk page is totally harmless, though. A lot of people find a redlink userpage annoying. --W.marsh 16:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Then they're being too easily annoyed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You people need to get jobs. --Ideogram 17:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why my comment was reverted? I thought people weren't supposed to do that. --Ideogram 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I unreverted it with my reply here - I am supporting Jeff here (in spite of his recent vote against me in a RfBan) -least he can do is chill out and let you post.--GordonWatts 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that it was an unintentional hit of the rollback button. It would have been unacceptable (and strange) to use rollback on what appeared to be a joking comment. ChazBeckett 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of interesting things and tasks awaiting for you guys which are more important than arguing why someone decided to keep his userpage blanked. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey everybody, let's chat on IRC! --Ideogram 17:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think the preceeding drawn-out discussion about a (seemingly) simple matter (redlinkage) most eloquently illustrates the difficulty I have been having in working with Jeffrey as an Admin on both AfD:Ebony Anpu's.Captain Barrett 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh for the love. Jeffrey's attitude, responses, and style may not benefit the community, but if anyone is "annoyed" by his lack of a userpage, they need to grow a thicker skin. Seriously folks, this is the Internet. Wikipedia is not censored for a wide array of things, and one of them is annoyance value.

Eleanor Roosevelt rightly observed that no one can offend you without your consent. The same goes for annoyance. If this is getting to you, think about why, and what you can do to temper your reaction. It is not the responsibility of the universe to shield you from all vexation -- you will encounter many annoyances in life.

A user can do anything they want /w their userspace within policy; users are not intended to be cookie-cutter homogenized mutually substitutable apparatchiks.

Please, let's give this a rest. Thanks. —Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-22 00:17Z

Keeping an empty userpage is fine. geez. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On the point first raised, of it making Jeff any harder to contact: I think that would be a very good point if he had no link at all, to either talk page or redlinked user page (as I raised recently for unrelated reasons at WP:SIG), and a half-decent one if he only had the redlink. However, as he links directly to his talk page (and actually, to both), I don't really see any substance to that. Personally, I'd have a distinct preference for admins (specifically) having user pages, and I recall this arising as an issue in some RfAs. Beyond that, I'm not sure there's much of a "so what", as clearly Jeff is aware of several people's such preferences, and as been noted, it's not against policy. However, it does seem extremely pointless to have a link to the lack of a user page (unless the point is to annoy people, or to make a "I deleted my user page" 'statement', or something along those lines, to speculate freely). Perhaps he might consider de-linking the user page from his signature, while he chooses not to have one. Alai 01:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP block

I have blocked Jmaynard (talk · contribs) for violations of WP:BLP after warnings. I removed a lot of material from List of Internet phenomena which was negative, unsourced, and involved private individuals. I made it clean in my edit summary that anyone reverting would face a block. I also posted to the talk page explaining what I was doing.[51] Jmaynard argued with me, wikilawyered, and complained. I repeatedly explained that he could replace the material if it he provided WP:reliable sources. The argument went on on the talk page and on my userpage and showed his total disregard of WP:BLP. He was also aware of my warning that violators could be blocked. Finally, he reverted my removals as vandalism [52] with some vague promise to add sources later. My patience is exhausted, so I've blocked for 24 hours. As he's sure not to accept this, I'm posting here.--Doc^g 01:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I came across List of Internet phenomena today for the first time when it was proposed as a redirect target for the Brian Peppers article during today's DRV. I took a look at the article, and in addition to a paragraph about Peppers (which I didn't think belonged here but which, to be fair, was more reasonable than any other Peppers write-up I have seen), there was a lengthy section called "People" about a number of mostly private individuals who have become famous, or infamous, typically because of something embarrassing they did that was captured on-camera or online and became an "internet meme." Many of these paragraphs raised concerns in my mind regarding notability, verifiability, and appropriateness for inclusion in light of privacy and related issues. I edited to delete a couple of the paragraphs I found most questionable. The paragraphs were restored shortly thereafter, with the reasonable observation that most of the entries linked to existing Wikipedia articles on these people and events, and therefore it didn't make sense to challenge the individual paragraphs. I mentally filed this as something that would be better addressed after the Peppers DRV was over.

Shortly thereafter, Sam Blanning initially closed the Peppers DRV with a result of redirect to List of Internet phenomena. (The redirect was changed to a straight keep-deleted after Peppers was deleted from the List article.) At that point, I described this article as a "WP:LIVING/privacy/notability horror show," which it was. Doc, who has substantial experience with OTRS/BLP issues, seems to have decided to become pro-active on this article and his observation that sources are required is of course correct, although actually, in some instances sources will probably be simply cut-and-pasted from the linked articles themselves. But in addition to the sourcing issue, several of these paragraphs and linked articles will raise the question of whether the embarrassing content of the material and resulting damage that private individuals may suffer from keeping it on Wikipedia warrants our retaining this material in our encyclopedia even if it were to be deemed fully sourced and true—issues similar to those raised in the Peppers debate today.

I hope these issues can be addressed without having to block contributors, especially those who feel strongly about matters of principle. Today's deletion debate on Brian Peppers, contrary to expectation, was not grossly overrun with trolls and SPAs. There were some, to be sure, but there were also a lot of good Wikipedians sharing their ideas and points of view; and as much as I endorse the closure coming when it did (and opposed holding the debate in the first place, as regular AN/ANI readers will recall), much of the general tone was reasonable. I hope that the same will be true of discussions resulting from this article. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In fairness I engaged in extensive discussion with Jmaynard, as can be seen. But with living persons we err on the side of removal of material. I repeatedly explained he could replace what he sourced. However, when he replaced all the unsourced material, calling my removal 'vandalism', my hand was forced. Yes, we need to carefully negotiate issues such as privacy and notability, as here we have nuanced opinion. An here blocking good wikipedians would certainly not be an option. Discussion is the way forward. But BLP is core policy and non-negotiable - it is intolerable to revert it as vandalism. I'm rather expecting to be endorsed on this one.--Doc^g 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just returned here from a longish post on the blocked user's page, which may (or may not) assist in seeing if there's any progress that can be made, and am surprised there isn't more input by now. :) I appreciate Doc's taking a leading role on these issues. Newyorkbrad 02:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds backwards. This is the list, cataloging these phenomena, summarizing them and pointing wikilinks to articles on them. The list doesn't need references for anything which is referenced in the WP article pointed to. Jay's right that referencing on the list too is silly. If there are BLP problems with the target articles, fix those; if the list comments inaccurately summarize the target article, fix that, but deleting it off the list due to BLP seems very wrong. IGeorgewilliamherbert 03:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree in the cases where we actually have articles on them, but some of the entries (like the infamous Brian Peppers) are too short for their own articles, so either shouldn't be mentioned at all, or must have references on the List page if they are. --Delirium 05:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you were to have read the articles you knocked off the list, many of them did have sources inside the articles themselves. A simple list does not need a source on every single little thing. I understand you're trying to follow WP:BLP, but blocking someone who's adding references in to what you deleted in an attempt to make it satisfactory to WP:BLP is way out of line. B=Plus, you appeared to block him while he was in progress of adding these citations. I'd say more but really, he did nothing blockable. He violated 1RR at best, and tried to improve on what was there.--Wizardman 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. No. The List didn't just contain a list of articles (if it did then it would be a category) - it made statements about the individuals concerned. BLP states all such must be sourced. The onus is not on me to fish the sources from elsewhere or other articles and to check they say what they are claimed to say. The onus is on the one who wishes to keep the statements to source them and then replace them. BLP is deliberately designed that way to make sure we err on the side of exclusion not inclusion. If it was that easy to source the statement on the list, then those that wished them kept should have done that and replaced them rather then fighting me. We've have our policy this way so that busy people like me that specialise in BLP enforcement can do our job without let or hinderance. Bulk replacing material removed under BLP without sourcing it is quite unacceptable - and the party was well warned.--Doc^g 09:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! What's all this business with blocking people after you've gotten into an argument with them? That's not exactly the right thing to be doing. --FOo 09:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, we do it vandals all the time. I was not in a content dispute.--Doc^g 11:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Jay is, he's not a vandal. Georgewilliamherbert 01:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. I'm sure Doc doesn't disagree either. He was pointing that there are exceptions to FOo's statement. Vandalism is one; BLP is another one. Newyorkbrad 01:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP shouldn't trump AGF and talking about it, if there's disagreement over what applies and there isn't any evident harm being done. Georgewilliamherbert 02:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've filed an RfC on this issue Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow--Doc^g 11:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on these issues is continuing at the RfC and its talkpage. Newyorkbrad 01:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mtcupps and Derek Bell (baseball player)

For some time, an anonymous user has been re-inserting a joke/insult to Derek Bell into the article listed above. Recently, that same anonymous user registered an account, and has persisted in his reversion, claiming that it should be included because people like it and it was part of old versions of the article. This isn't a pure content dispute, since it cuts across BLP issues, and he isn't listening to me and doesn't seem willing to check policy pages. From his other edits, it also appears that he could use some help with things like signing his posts and fair use image guidelines, but I'm pretty sure that he won't be disposed to hear about them from me. If it's not too much trouble, would one of you mind having a word with him? I don't want to see this escalate any further, since he's made some good contributions in other areas, and I'd rather not see him get blocked for doing something dumb out of ignorance. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are BLP issues; it's sourced elsewhere in the article. And, you can't really say "redundant" on there and "BLP issues" here and maintain a coherent position, can you? If it's a BLP violation, whatever it's redundant with is also. --Random832 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Operation Shutdown" was Bell's own reference to his unhappiness in spring training of 2002, saying that he wouldn't compete for a job he felt should have been his. To say that it is ongoing today is absolutely a BLP violation (Bell is retired and has more than once expressed regret for his outburst), and is an attack on Bell to boot. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with this. Regardless, I think that even though the tone of this section was absolutely inappropriate, the fact that some people were still harping on this four years later can be mentioned without violating policy. --Random832 16:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the only guy who's still "harping on it" is Mtcupps. If there were a newspaper running an "Operation Shutdown" counter on the side of their sports section, that'd be a different animal, but as it is, it's pretty much a dead issue at this point in the outside world. WP:V, yeah? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think he really gets it. He just warned me here for reverting his removal of content here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And he put the content back into Derek Bell (baseball player), so Operation Block Mtcupps is now officially on day one. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP-hopping vandalism

There is a vandal in an IP block which I'd define as 81.145.2*.*. He is continuously vandalizing Sailor Moon articles, talk pages, and the user pages of its editors, including multiple death threats to User:Eternal Pink. We've semi-protected his favorite article, Mamoru Chiba, but that's just made it worse. At least two versions of him per day are making multiple destructive edits before each is finally blocked. He usually then abuses the "unblock request" templates to make further insults. To see a sampling of his work, check the histories of Mamoru Chiba and its talk page, Chibiusa, Talk:Sailor Moon, my own user page, Eternal Pink's userpage. He has not been limited to those areas, but they're the major ones. Check out his various talk pages for the personal attacks and death threats.

Is it possible to block an entire set of IPs, not just one? We're really starting to get sick of this guy. --Masamage 19:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okie doke -- for starters, I've protected both of your userpages. I've looked into this briefly -- WHOIS suggests that the range of IPs available is 81.145.192.0 - 81.145.243.255 -- not quite a /16, but most of one. It's an irregular range, I think, so the best I can figure is the following three blocks:

• Special:Blockip/81.145.192.0/19
• Special:Blockip/81.145.224.0/20
• Special:Blockip/81.145.240.0/22

I haven't done anything past those two sprotects and the WHOIS, just yet -- gotta head off to class. ;) Looking at the past contribs of some of the involved IPs, it's clear there's multiple people in this range, even if most of them aren't all that active. That or our little friend has had a change of heart. I'd like to put in a little more thought/discussion before we decide if a mass-sprotect or some rangeblocking is in order, but given the scope and duration of this nonsense, I'd say it's clear that at least one of the two is justified. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Went through, sprotected a few pages. Will try to keep an eye on this -- let me know if I'm missing anything. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! He hasn't been terribly active today; maybe he's finally getting bored. Anyway, those sprotects will help. --Masamage 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jat Page - Vandalism and Removal of Dispute Tags

I have added dispute tags over 6 times to this page and some vandal keeps removing them, without discussion. I was asked to add content to back up my dispute and have done. Can anything be done please? --Sikh-history 00:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Invite the users to go to Talk:Jat and discuss there. If that isn't inconclusive, then see WP:DR and follow the instructions one-by-one as a suggestion. x42bn6 Talk 00:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users creating new policy pages

A group of users, or one user, seem to have been creating new policy pages without consensus or respect for policy. If you see Musical Linguist's deletion log, you will see what I am referring to.

The users have been blocked, but we should watch out for new WP: and Wikipedia:-space pages being created. --sunstar net^talk 01:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking and harassment by User:BackMaun

This user has undone most of the productive edits I made today. They seem to be stalking me. This user has previously made apparently intentional contentious edits (see comments on the user's talk page) and has also repeatedly posted uncivil messages on my talk page, even after I have asked them several times not to. I don't understand half the things the user is saying. I've removed the posts on my talk page, so check the page history. Could someone have a word with this user? I don't know them, and don't want to communicate with them any further. Anything I say does not seem to be understood, and the user continues to rant about things which don't actually seem to have happened. Khabs 01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just glancing at your contributions from today, I see that you have reverted this editor six times with no explanation in the edit summary on six different articles not including your talk page. Most of the reverts were uncalled for. Who's stalking who? You probably should cease knee-jerk reverting everything the other editor adds to the project if you want anyone to believe your statement is in good faith. - WeniWidiWiki 02:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking and Removal of cited material

Tarharqa continues to remove cited material from Racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians. He is an extreme POV pusher and has been warned 5 times by 3 different users to cease his behaivor. NeoFreak 01:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zclark111 (talk · contribs)

I marked the article Travis Steedle for deletion. Suddenly 3 people sprung up on the talk page to say what a great guy he was. All the accounts (including the original, Zclark111) were created within hours of each other. I suspect they may be sockpuppets or meatpuppets. The people involved are:

• Steedlefan21 (talk · contribs)
• Pmurph405 (talk · contribs)
• DaisyMay4Life (talk · contribs)

Nardman1 02:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screen name1234: possible sockpuppet of Maleabroad

As happens every ~4 days, a possible sockpuppet of User:Maleabroad is back (this time under the username User: Screen name 1234) recreating deleted article, adding highly contentious and POV edits to his-usual-set of articles, and leaving uncivil edit summaries. Can some admin please look into this; is there a more permanent solution than filing periodic checkuser/ANI reports and reverting his edits individually ?

See earlier ANI case reports: [53] and [54], which list further evidence, sockpuppets and checkuser findings. Thanks. Abecedare 04:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Screen name1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Also, the checkuser flagged Benevolent56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Geomatician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) as sockpuppets of Maleabroad, which is borne out by this diff, among others. Orpheus 09:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Username2577u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) may be another one. I agree that Benevolent56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is probably a sock. Buddhipriya 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Buddhipriya 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Due to Maleabroad's uterly unrepentant behaviour, and his systemic edit-warring, uncivility, pov-pushing and block evasions, I've blocked indefinitely Maleabroad.--Aldux 23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Benevolent56 is actively disruptive as of now Buddhipriya 00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also today we have [55] and [56] arriving on the scene to take up battle along similar lines. Buddhipriya 00:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Sp44 but I'm avoiding blocking the IP for now. Since it belongs to a university, I think a block can wait a bit.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Another one that just popped up but which looks suspicious is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sattelitesqdf Buddhipriya 03:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nasz

User has a long history of making disruptive and bizarre edits.

Here is one example:

• [57]. Note the strange header "LiV" and the unintelligible image captions "Lao Tzu do two fingers to" and "two to, on an ancient Greek vase". I asked him about this edit, to which he replied here with a bizarre response that makes no sense.

Here is example of a deliberate disruption on the WP:AIV board:

• [58]. Note he reposted someone else's complaint after it had already been deleted.

He blanks his talk page to remove any complaints against him:

• [59] Note the many complaints that have lodged in the past month.

-- Stbalbach 05:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I got mixed up in this as a result of patrol of recent changes. What a tremendous waste of energy this disruption causes. Buddhipriya 05:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• His disruptive nonsense continues today, e.g., this addition of a link that goes nowhere. Buddhipriya 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• • More of the same nonsense, this time with page deletions needed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=110259673&oldid=110258598 What does it take to deal with this? Buddhipriya 05:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Krumlauf‎

Mikekrumlauf (talk · contribs) has created the article Mike Krumlauf‎ and repeatedly removed speedy deletion tags from it. He also has been repeatedly adding himself to the "notable residents" section of Naperville, Illinois. There's also a new account Screenplayer928 (talk · contribs) created about the same time and the only edits have been agreeing with the other account, sockpuppet seems a likely possibility. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• 23:46, 22 February 2007 Cryptic (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Screenplayer928 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (painfully obvious sockpuppet of User:Mikekrumlauf)

Beat me too it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need a little help

Re: this little revert dispute on Template talk:WikiProjectBanners. Granted I've gotten frustrated with this issue, but User:Quadzilla99 is needlessly turning the topic I brought up into a heated debate based on his assumptions for my motivations. Myself and others had a past dispute with him when he was using a bot to add {{Talkheader}} to hundreds of talk pages, and he was asked to stop. (ironic, given the debate on Template talk:WikiProjectBanners) I really want to have a legitimate discussion about the issue I raised, but no one's going to want to get involved as long as he keeps pushing for a fight. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that arguing about it is valid reason to delete the comments, even if it may deter others from participating... I don't know that it reaches the level of disruptive yet, he clearly feels strongly about it and is making reasonable if forceful comments, unless I missed something. Georgewilliamherbert 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I really feel he's just venting his frustrations from the previous dispute I was in with him. Template talk:Talkheader/Archive 2#Bot. What's the point of assuming good faith and asking people to be nice if you can't actually do anything about it? If I had deleted his comments I could understand, but I moved them to his talk page and then noted that I had moved them and provided a link. It's inappropriate and it's getting in the way of legitimate discussion. Is it not reasonable to at least allow one to move the comments in light of what I have brought up? -- Ned Scott 03:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Usually no; some uninvolved third party may want to get involved and talk to him politely, but I don't think moving the comments is the right thing. I would talk to him but i'm logging off for a while... Georgewilliamherbert 03:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but I'm not the most popular guy on that talk page right now, which is why I'm asking here instead of reverting him anymore. :P -- Ned Scott 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the link I gave from Template talk:Talkheader doesn't have the actual dispute stuff, so it's not really a good example of what happened. Whatever, though, forget it, it's been shot to shit anyways and I'll have to give up on that discussion (no one will want to get involved). If you ask me, it's pretty shitty that if you make someone mad in the past they can just get away with what Quadzilla99 is doing to that discussion, and that no one will stand up for you because they disagree with you on an XfD relating to that page. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Deals -- Reborn

The user "Great Deals -- Reborn" is persistently violating the 3RR on his talk page. Please block this person from editing, as I cannot report him/her in the normal AIV page. Nol888_(Talk) 03:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason for anybody to ever look at that page again, so it really doesn't matter much, but I'll go ahead and protect the page. Newyorkbrad 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it was done already. Thanks Nol888_(Talk) 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that could have been a bot or script doing the reverting, and might have continued to the end of time, so it's a good thing you mentioned it. Newyorkbrad 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fowler&fowler user:IP198

Suspected sock/meatpuppet of user:Fowler&fowler. This user has edited in the same articles as Fowler&fowler (see here, here, here and here). He is being used by fowler to have me trapped into 3RR in Indian mathematics, an article I worked hard on but every single one of my edits (including citations from the Univ of Michigan etc.) get removed. Not only has this user been accused of being Fowler's sockpuppet, he has also reverted my edits to Fowler -- see here and here. I'm getting tired and in just a bit I'll either have to get caught in the 3RR or see my work removed belligerently in Indian mathematics. Please help urgently. _{Freedom skies| talk}  04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

this anon account was formed on 22 February 2007. It has attacked Indian mathematics twice. Fowler had been working on the same "Charges of Eurocentrism" aspect of the article which can be verified here. I'll almost certainly have to watch my hard work go to waste or incur the 3RR. _{Freedom skies| talk}  04:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need help at PlentyofFish

Hi. As one of my grunt tasks, I watch PlentyofFish as there seems to be an issue with repeated reinsertions of some guy's non-RS complaints against the admins on that site. Just went through a string of reverts with a single-purpose account, Rebeltiger. I went 4 reverts without thinking about it and, although it is probably not an issue in this case, I recently seemed to have been scratched off a couple of admins Christmas lists and did not want to take a chance so I self-reverted. Usually there is another editor or two there so there is back-up but apparently not tonight. Can someone give me a hand, please? Thanks --Justanother 04:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted, and left a {uw-npov1}, comment about reliable sources, and {3rr} warning on their talk page. --Onorem 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Justanother 04:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious stalking sockpuppet

I appear to have acquired a brand-new obvious stalking sockpuppet, Martirio (talk · contribs). Someone want to deal with this, or do I have to go to WP:RFCU? --Calton | Talk 07:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Feel free, but you'll have to figure out who it could be first (I also mass reverted, as there's no reason to subject all of those userpages to MFD).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. No point in going to RFCU, then, but I suspect it's Jjaproductions (talk · contribs), had who been blocked several minutes before the new guy suddenly appeared, in response to legal threats he left on my and Mailer diablo's Talk pages in response HIS user page getting nuked. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. And now Doing the Right Thing (talk · contribs) appears... --Calton | Talk 08:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Whoa, already blocked. --Calton | Talk 08:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saganet

google cache there are other languages versions [60] [61]

Who deleted it? Why? When? Nasz 05:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the [deletion log, apparently it was User:Mailer diablo on 19:08, 21 February 2007 becacuse it qualified for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. --Iamunknown 05:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is important article, wikilinked to othern now orphaned articles. The lagrest collection of Norse manuscripts . Please restore. And condem his action.

This is important article; wikilinked to others articles with now orphaned red links. It is the largest in World collection of Norse manuscripts hosted on http://saga.library.cornell.edu/. Please restore and denounce User:Eagle_101 deletion. For Norse history it is like Library of Congress for USA.

Nasz 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just more disruption by Nasz. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nasz Other complaints about him are scattered elsewhere on his archived talk pages, which he blanks immediatly after a new complaint comes in. Buddhipriya 07:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is yet another thread on Nasz covering different disruption. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#molecular_gentic_as_.22pseudoscience.22 Buddhipriya 07:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Nasz for 24 hours for disruption. I'm not sure if his edits even fall under 3RR, but if they do, he also violated that. dab (𒁳) 10:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:NetOracle

User:NetOracle has recently gone on something of a AfD spree, proposing for deletion or supporting the deletion of many webcomic-related articles on grounds of notability (always without first applying a notability template to allow for cleanup by authors). [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] While some of these arguments doubtless have merits, his unflinching desire to delete anything webcomic-related seems very suspicious [69] (see bolded text by Erk). Furthermore, there are some arguments to be made that he is, in fact, a purpose-built sockpuppet and/or disruptive user. As he does not fall under any of the categories for WP:CHECK, I'd ask that an Administrator:

• Perform a checkuser, and
• Evaluate the issues with the user I have brought up

Even if he is not a sock, it is my opinion that he is acting as a disruptive and negative force to the project as a whole, and I'd like to see if, in fact, my views on that are shared by a neutral, third-party administrator.

Your attention to my case is appreciated in advance. Jouster 15:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Found an additional reference for malice. [70] Jouster 15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

NetOracle’s focus on deletion nominations (edit count) looks a bit odd and the manner in which those nominations are done falls far short of the best current practice. However, I find it important to assume good faith here. NetOracle’s understanding of the distinction between policies and other project pages seems hazy[71] and the nominations are annoyingly vague and repetitive.[72] The nominations don’t seem to be preceded by any other effort to improve articles, such as tagging them or posting on talk pages; this is not very polite towards editors working on those articles. Also, the description of AFD contributors as ‘kooks [who] belong on fan wikis and in chatrooms, and not on a place whose goal is intellectual writing of a meaningful nature’[73] is discordant with AGF and WP:NEWBIES (the latter due to the webcomics-related noise off-wiki having attracted new editors). While it’s not an actionable matter, NetOracle’s actions have furthermore unnecessarily caused some bad feelings off-wiki. I’d like somebody uninvolved to consider talking to NetOracle about these things to ensure better communication and cooperation in the future. Nevertheless, I do not currently see a need for administrative intervention.
Note: I am or have been involved in several related deletion discussions and cannot claim to be unbiased. Also, while I have focused on NetOracle’s behaviour here, some editors opposing him have displayed attitudes and behaviour which I cannot endorse, either. —xyzzy_n 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Final Note - I'm going to have my peace, and then I'm done here. Administrators - please block my account indef; I don't intend to return.

I've been reading Wikipedia for years. It is, by far, the most informational site on the entire Internet. I never contributed regularly or as a non-anon, because I never had the time. I was reading Wikipedia during a recent vacation, and saw some errors which needed corrected - this is when I registered my account. After performing some editing, I came across an article which I thought didn't belong, so I read up on the deletion process and other meta-functions, and went ahead and proposed it. This was my first experience with the insane deletion process here.

It was after that that I saw the insane deletion process, and a complete mess at a certain AfD, that I began to lose faith in Wikipedia. But, because this is a Wiki, I decided to try and create a push to enforce existing policy and keep the site clean of non-notable material, just as others try to keep it free of vandalism, free of spam, and free of harmful hoax edits. As I intended to become a serious editor, I tried to do my part in cleanup so that I didn't feel as if my time was being wasted, and my edits diluted by non-notable cruft, and other materials of little to no academic interest. In retrospect, I'm glad I didn't jump head-first into heavy editing, and instead learned of the direction in which Wikipedia is headed as a direct result of the broadening userbase. Several editors have raised the non-issue of my comparatively small number of edits in article space, and no amount of reason seems to convey to them that non-notable material, and other forms of cruft, is a serious detriment to Wikipedia's reputation, and results in the discouragement of many serious and academically-focused editors who really don't want to be part of a cesspool of cruft, tribute pages, and non-notable pop culture.

Apparently, though, no other active editors seem to share my concern of Wikipedia being overrun with fancruft, and the only people who do actually care are shaking their heads in silent dismay. Even though such material may be well-written (and in the case of the articles I nominated for deletion, it was), the issue is that it simply is out of place, and goes into an inappropriate level of detail, after failing to convince an impartial person reading the article for information (not for editing) of the notability of the subject. The very best how-to guide still needs to be deleted from Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a how-to or DIY website; a similar approach needs to be taken to articles whose subjects may be known and loved by a small majority, but aren't notable in the grand scheme of things, and don't exert very much influence on media, culture, society, and humanity in general.

Instead of continuing to beat my head against the wall here, and make relatively little progress, I'll just do other things with my time and use other sites for reference. There is no point in trying to be intelligent on what is becoming more and more like a community bulletin/graffiti board every day, with standards approaching Geocities as t approaches infinity. The majority of editors don't seem to care that Wikipedia is becoming a giant repository of random/useless trivia, tribute pages, and fancruft in general. Wikipedia is not my site, and I don't hold delusions that it is going to change to fit my vision and my vision alone. NetOracle 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for melodrama, and touching though your account is, it glosses over the apparent malice with which you pursued these AfD's. I don't think anyone is disputing that several of them were deserving. But when you went on a nominating spree unchecked by out-of-site verification of non-notability ("This may be one of the few notable webcomics") and—in my opinion, more importantly—unchecked by any attempt to use in-article templates to suggest cleanup and sourcing, your editlog just reads like that of an editor with a vendetta.

I encourage you, and all other similarly-minded editors, to participate in and make the most of the Wiki process. Despite your assertion of, "[beating your] head against the wall here, and [making] relatively little progress," you did successfully remove quite a few bits of fancruft encroachment, and I appreciate that they are gone. If you'd like to continue your work to make this project a place you can call your "intellectual home", so to speak, I'd just ask that you use all the tools available to you, not just AfD, to get the appropriate actions taken.

Administrators, I still humbly request a checkuser on this (NetOracle's) account, and I continue to request a review of his actions en bloc. Jouster 14:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please request checkuser on WP:RFCU and stop baiting users by making deletrious allegations against them. NetOracle has NOT been disruptive; and I must disagree with xyzzyn as I DO NOT see the hazyness in his arguments. Please do not discourage other users from contributing to the encyclopedia and assume good faith. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I cited [74], where NetOracle alleged violation of ‘our established policies’ and listed WP:N, WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS and Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. Of these five pages, only one is a policy; of the other four, three are guidelines and one looks like a project. Based on that, I commented that ‘NetOracle’s understanding of the distinction between policies and other project pages seems hazy’. See it now? —xyzzy_n 20:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

NHN, I am a relative newcomer to the policy side of the Project, and I could not spot the proper heading to affix to a RFCU. Indeed, the text, "Other disruption of articles: List on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents," on that page was what caused me to come here in the first place. So, please don't bite. I followed established, written procedure to accomplish a goal I felt was in the best interests of the Project.

Now, if you take issue with whether he's been disruptive, that's fine. But you're embroiled in all of this, as well, for better or worse, so I don't think your view is strictly objective. To quote from myself: "...and I'd like to see if, in fact, my views on that are shared by a neutral, third-party administrator." Jouster 15:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Betacommand

(moved from WP:AN)

Could someone look into the fact that admin Betacommand has been blocked indef by User:Pschemp for running an unauthorised bot? seams slightly OTT for me RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• This looks bad. But if it is an unauthorized bot, it is a valid block per WP:BLOCK. Betacommand has already been unblocked though by Wangi. --W.marsh 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Is it a bot or a script? No bots on admin accounts though, and it looks like a second offense from the block log. Maru was desysopped over this, by the way. Thatcher131 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • After looking into it, it doesn't look like the bot Betacommand was running actually used admin tools, it just reported possible bad user names to WP:RFCN. Not sure what Maru's was doing exactly. There's discussion leading up to this block at User_talk:Betacommand#Auto_reporting_Bad_username. --W.marsh 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh yeah, not sure if this is a bot or a script, but seems like a bot. Sorry for the imprecise language. --W.marsh 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeh I agree if he's running an unauthorised bot its a valid block, however, I fail to see where Pschemp has even asked him about it, and its not certain he was reporting to WP:RFCN with a bot RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I had already discussed this on IRC with him. Then when the bot started up again, I again attempted to contact him and he didn't respond this time. This was not an out of the blue action. OF course, next time you could do the polite thing and ask me personally what was going on, which I see you didn't. I would be glad to explain, yet you didn't give me the chance. This is extremely rude behaviour, taking it to AN without even asking the blocking admin. Wangi acted just as rudely by reversing my block without asking either. It does say "Remember, there was probably a good reason for the person to be blocked. Please discuss the block with the blocking sysop before unblocking." Glad to see people ignoring that. pschemp | talk 22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed on wikipedia with him rather that IRC? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm allowed to have a discussion about behaviour privately. You accused me of blocking without warning. However, I'm just saying that isn't the case, I already had discussed it with betacommand. As for discussion, you didn't even try to discuss the block with me, just went right to AN. Follow your own advice. pschemp | talk 22:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I took it to AN because you can't just take it upon yourself to block an admin without any evidence to that he is definately running a bot and not just a script. Theres also no evidence on wikipedia that you discussed it with him, rather you just put this comment on WP:RFCN which was quickly removed. You can't expect Betacommand to go around the history of every page to see where he is mentioned. RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand wasn't blocked for running an unauthorised bot, rather for WP:POINT, and personally, I'd really much rather have a bot reporting suspected 'bad' usernames to WP:RFCN and being looked at rather than them being blocked on site and loosing a potential good user. There's no reason why a clone of the AIV helperbot couldn't keep RFCN clear of blocked users with Werdnabot archiving everything else every day or two. Bad block from pschemp, good idea, poor execution from Beta. -- Heligoland 22:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand was running the bot as revenge on people goin through his block log. He makes that very clear on his talk page if you read it. That is a point violation. btw, if anybody had given me a fucking chance to read betacommand's reply I would have unblocked as he explained it was a mistake. But no, instead, we jump down my throat, wheel war and go straight to AN. I'm disgusted people didn't even try to ask me what was going on. pschemp | talk 22:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did try to go directly to you regarding it and you pretty much brushed me off and told me to keep it on his page. I did not know another administrator had already unblocked him and was consulting you for that action. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did. I didn't brush you off, I told you I'd already applied to your question on Betacommand's talk page. How is that a brush off? At that point, Betacommand had not replied. pschemp | talk 22:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I apolagize for jumping to the conclusion that iwasa a brush off. I felt like it was the most appropriate course of action and, from your response (which i now understand because the reply was in another place), I felt like i was being brushed off. No worries though! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We should try to have discussion on-wiki about these types of things before blocking, and not limit discussion to IRC. This is part of the reason I dislike IRC so much... Prodego ^talk 22:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unauthorized bots should be blocked on sight according to the bots policy, talking to the user on IRC first is a courtesy. This wasn't a discussion had about if to block or not. --pgk 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But what was the block reason? It wasn't WP:BOT... /wangi 22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It was POINT and running a bot on the Betacommand account, which, I beleive is not an authorised bot account. pschemp | talk 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That starting to sound very bureaucratic, the block reason wasn't precise enough (and well all know what wikipedia is not) --pgk 22:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Betacommand has made some inappropriate username blocks lately, and doesn't seem particularly responsive on this issue. I'm not convinced he should have been unblocked until we're satisfied that his inappropriate blocks will stop. Friday (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Friday I am attempting to solve that issue with the development of this tool. I was not "getting revenge" I was trying to make a point with the limits of WP:POINT while not violating it. people have questioned my blocks so I am attempting to take care of that. [75] is a perfect example. I guess I'm damed if I block the users and damed if I report them. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your words "Im getting tired of being bitched at for no reason. thus I am reporting VERY block to make sure the bitching stops" sounds like a POINTY revenge to me. pschemp | talk 22:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Has WP:RCFN changed then, I thought it was for input into if names were inappropriate prior to blocking if someone declined to change when asked, not for a review of every user blocked for an inappropriate username. You say "I'm damed if I block the users and damed if I report them", in that example you did both. If you aren't confident it's a valid block, then don't block. --pgk 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflict) The background here is that Betacommand is one of the two administrators who has been most active in reviewing lists of newly created usernames and blocking on sight those which are patently unacceptable. (The other admin who's been active in this area recently is pschemp herself.) As Betacommand mentioned in a thread a couple of weeks ago, every day hundreds of usernames are created that need to be blocked on sight; he assembled a memorable list of them (of which "Newyorkbradisreallyboring" was my personal favorite). He and pschemp are both to be commended for this activity, as every one of those accounts was vandalism waiting to happen.

Over the past several weeks, though, there have been a number of inquiries raised as to why a given name had been blocked. Good-faith editors who find themselves blocked at inception because of what does not even appear to be a violation of the username policy are apt to be perturbed over the matter, and within the past few days a number of these blocks have been brought to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names and reversed. (Since I'm giving out credit in this paragraph, it should be noted that HighInBC has been most responsible for the operation of that board in the past few weeks, with pschemp pitching in as well.) As the number of questioned username blocks increased, there was an RfC requested on Betacommand, which was defused after it was pointed out that he should be allowed to explain what was going on. It turns out that there are criteria other than the obvious ones that he applies to these blocks, for example, when a new username is close to that of a prior persistent vandal. In the process, new good-faith contributors are sometimes ensnared.

To avoid being criticized further, Betacommand apparently reset his program to report many, if not every one, of these username blocks to RFC/N. This was unnecessary, and cluttered RFC/N, which is generally a pretty obscure backwater, with requests that the community validate the blocking of User:Bitchslapper or User:Ryulongs. This isn't necessary. I'm sure we can work out a mechanism to obtain community input before blocking new User:Guest9999 or Qwerty12345, without requiring the same before blocking User:ImHereToVandalizeWikipedia and User:NewyorkbradsANIPostsAreWayTooLong. Newyorkbrad 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So to summarise we've got two guys doing good work, in the same field and they just need to knock their heads together and sort it out, nicely. Lets discuss, no block. /wangi 22:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we could have worked it out without all the drama and your intervention, but you didn't exactly give me a chance. pschemp | talk 22:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the drama certainly wasn't down to my intervention - you managed that yourself :) I don't want o blow this out of proportion (after all we all make daft blocks now and again), but an indef-block and no on-wiki discussion isn't exactly the way to work this through. Ta/wangi 22:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, As soon as I blocked, I left a message waiting for Betacommand to respond. That is on wiki discussion. Also, you totally and completely were rude and inconsiderate by reversing my block without even talking to me. Yes, I'm upset about that, and that does deserve drama. Wheel warring is not acceptable, and reversing blocks without even have the courtesy to ask what is going on is beyond rude. pschemp | talk 22:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is rude to assume bad faith on an admin action and reverse it without discussing first. No, that does not mean it deserves drama. You of course took the high road and didn't replace your block when it was removed, which if we had more of, we'd have less wheel wars. Discuss first people. It's extremely simple to avoid wheel and edit wars. Simply don't revert. Precious few things are urgent on Wikipedia. - Taxman ^Talk 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And to be fair, I didn't know about an RFC until NYB's comment above, but that is over the top. Recently WP:RFCN has become a very unpleasant place, where people go through other's block log and pick and whine about every single thing. I don't blame Betacommand for being upset with this. And, he did agree to stop the reporting after a discussion. He says it was mistake it was turned back on, and I believe him. I would have unblocked then and we could have gone our merry ways, but for 8 other people turning this into massive unneccesary drama. Seriously. Pgk has it right when he says that "I thought it was for input into if names were inappropriate prior to blocking if someone declined to change when asked, not for a review of every user blocked for an inappropriate username." That's what is is for. Not to harass the people who do the blocking work. pschemp | talk 22:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this remind you of a certain user who had a block-bot that blocked users with edit summaries like (user...) which were rather cryptic?? I'm not sure about an indefinite block, but may be a 48 or 72-hour block would be more suitable. --sunstar net^talk 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think he needs to be blocked. I think he needs to just make sure he's careful about the blocks an reasons. pschemp | talk 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by the "tool". Does this mean these blocks were done without human intervention. A casual glance at Betacommand's block log shows many obviously appropriate blocks, but also some without adequate explanation. Betacommand, I suggest you stop blocking while this is discussed. Friday (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So much for blocking being to protect Wikipedia, looks like some of us are discussing punitive blocks. -- Heligoland 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I was having a lot of my username blocks questioned so I created a tool to help explain that and stop the questions. and provide explanations for my actions. The "bot" that i was using is a lot like pgkbot on IRC only thing is It flags only certain usernames. I decide what usernames need blocked as I am not running a Curpsbot what I am running is a reporting script that helps Identify bad new usernames, And IF I THINK the username was bad I placed a block Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I'm at a loss in trying to comprehend why there's so much fuss being made of a really good leap forward in dealing with new users in a way that doesn't result in new users being blocked instantly for having a slightly ambigious username. I've said above, run RFCN like AIV, blocked names are removed by a bot, everything is archived after 24 (or whatever) hours if there's no block or further comments, just like this board. We can quite easily rustle up a template and have the bot tag the users talk page saying their username is giving cause for concern, could they comment and again, send them a message when the username discussion is archived saying (after 24 or however many hours) we consider the username to be acceptable at present. -- Heligoland 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it is uneeded duplication of work for usernames like user:fuckoffbitch. Its also WP:CREEP and a total waste of time for something that is already being dealt with effectively. Bots should not block usernames, they can't AGF, or make decisions that people can. Also, the exact same thing he reported is already being reported to vandalism channel if you want to see it. It also totally contradicts the purpose of WP:RFCN which is to discuss borderline names before making a block, not to go back and do the big brother trick on every single username block. Every single username block does not need to be reviewed. Your proposal is a solution to problem that doesn't exist. pschemp | talk 22:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a work creation scheme to me. There is no need to scour the new user log looking for names which "might" after some debate be considered inappropriate. Many accounts created never edit or edit once or twice, if their username is borderline then there is no point in wasting peoples time reviewing these. If on the other hand they do start editing, then in the natural course of things someone will notice and ask them to change if need be (and possibly onto RFC if need be).

I propose a much simpler system, if the username is clearly inappropriate, block it on sight. If it's borderline leave it, it'll either follow the paths above, will be blocked by someone else as inappropriate or will start vandalising and be blocked anyway. --pgk 22:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll add to that, if you keep finding people complaining your obvious blocks were borderline (or not so obvious), move your threshold. --pgk 22:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN works perfectly fine, legitimate concerns were raised with Beta's blocks and I see his script creating as an active step to calm others concerns, In my eyes it was at too low a threshold as RFCN was getting blocked up. Concerns must be raised if usernames are blocked on sight without a legitimate reason, it is not right that admins have the right to block usernames if they aren't blatantly against WP:U, it is simply biting, hence where WP:RFCN comes into play to discuss these blocks. RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What is your issue? Its that kind of "admins are abusing newbies, the world is going to end" witch hunt attitude that caused this whole thing. pschemp | talk 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If I might Id like to turn the script back on and have it report to User:Betacommand\Log only. are there any objections? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Not from me, think its a good tool to notify yourself of username violations RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Not from me either - you will find people watchlisting the log and act on it. Agathoclea 07:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Why not run it under User:BetacommandBot, which is already approved as a bot, rather than User:Betacommand, which has the major issues of being an account (1) with +sysop and (2) without +bot? (It's not for editcount, is it? Also, you should use / instead of \ for subpages.) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 07:53Z

I could envision a subpage of RFCN where the bot post his observation. Whoever is interrested can watchlist it. AIV-Helperbot can remove blocked items. Humans can remove AGF accountnames or move questionable ones to the main page. Agathoclea 09:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why bother? If someone comes across a name in the course of editing and feels it is inappropriate, by all means list it. Going and hunting out things to review or get offended by seems to be a waste of time and effort. Many of these accounts will never edit or edit once or twice, why do we need to drag them through such a process. Prople complain about these names being blocked promptly would put new people off, I know I'd be far more turned off by, within minutes of registering, finding my username dragged through a bureaucratic process, with a load of random people I don't know pontificating about if it's ok or not. If it's obviously inappropriate block it, if not leave it alone. --pgk 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What WP:RFCN is really for

The issue here is that WP:RFCN is for getting feedback on questionable names before blocking, not for hunting witches in people's block logs and then harrassing admins who do the work over it. (you have to be feaking kidding me that people thought an RFC on Betacommand was a good idea. Try talking to him first!) That attitude has been extremely pervasive there lately, and frankly I'm tired of it. This statement Ryan, "it is not right that admins have the right to block usernames if they aren't blatantly against WP:U, it is simply biting, hence where WP:RFCN comes into play to discuss these blocks." is totally wrong. If you think an admin is blocking incorrectly, the correct action is to talk to them first, then take it here to ANI if you think the community needs to comment. WP:RFCN is not the place for that. Its purpose is discuss before you block, not after. I used to play a large part in maintaining that page, when it was being used correctly, but I refuse to participate in the lynchings that have been going on lately. Your automatic assumption of admin wrongdoing is condescending and offputting. That witch hunt mentality is the root cause of this entire thread. pschemp | talk 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with that, RFCN is there to comment on usernames, the reason why blocked usernames have been brought there is because after all, its a request for comment on usernames, whether they've been blocked or not, it is the place to discuss these issues. Its not right that every time an admin makes a mistake with a username block it should be brought up here. The problem with Betacommand was, initially he wasn't responding to talk page messages and hence they were brought up at RFCN. By blocking a new editor because of a username which doesn't seam to infinge on WP:U is going to stop them editing. At RFCN, if a blocked user is brought up, they are quickly unblocked so they are able to comment, thus hopefully keeping a few of these new editors on wikipedia. I agree that it should be discussed with the blocking admin first, however, it is often a lot quicker to resolve the matter by talking on WP:RFCN RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean despite what it says at the top of WP:RFCN which is states nothing about reviewing made blocks. One of the problems with that approach is that it is at too low a level and doesn't actually address the issue, if editors are turned away by these blocks, listing afterwards and getting the block "overturned" is irrelevant, you need prompt action not some bureaucratic process for a very small subset of the wikipedia community to salivate over. wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, admins are selected hopefully as trusted and having suitable judgment to make such decisions (this of course doesn't mean they are infallible). If an admin blocks a username and you disagree discuss it with them, if multiple people do this then they should reassess their criteria. If it's an ongoing problem use normal dispute resolution such as a full WP:RFC, this should help confirm that the admins judgment is normally sound, that they should be less aggressive in the blocking or that perhaps they should turn their attention elsewhere entirely.

I'll work out some statistics later, but last time I checked the number of username blocks compared to new user accounts was a few percent (8000+ usernames per day), and the majority of those made few of no edits. We need to keep a sense of proportion about such things. --pgk 07:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this resolved?

So, is this resolved now? Have we made any progress? Where are we? Newyorkbrad 01:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may weigh in, it seems that admins lately are quick on the blocking finger when it comes to username. Most username blocks are obvious, and I do appreciate the work that Betacommand and other admins do. That having been said, there are cases of ambiguity. For example, a username that contains "troll" may or may not have the connotation that we give to the world- when most people hear "troll", they think of mythical creatures, dolls, or B-movies. While some of these cases are legitimate malefactors who will make a few vandalous edits, that doesn't outweigh the bad of us blocking a legitimate contributor for a username that would, to them, be considered perfectly innocuous. Ral315 » 06:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd refer you to pgk's comments above. We block people who make good faith usernames all the time, examples being names with "bot" and "admin" in them. However, they get a polite message telling them what is going on and request for a change from {{usernameblocked}} and most are soft blocks making new account creation simple. In fact, my experience is that the people who care about editing will e-mail me anyway to make sure the new name they pick is ok. I've never had any of them say this put them off from editing. I don't see that wikipedia is hurting for new editors either. Sorry, but the speculation that blocking someone with admin in the username is harmful just doesn't play out. In fact, it is far better to block and request a name change when they have no edits, than to have to deal with established editors with clear username violations. They *do* get pissy. I've always found the new people who care or just made a mistake or didn't think about the username to be most accomodating about changing them. pschemp | talk 08:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get my first choice of username or my second, how many attempts it took I can't recall now. Given the sheer volume of usernames created it wouldn't suprise me if some people go through quite a few before finding one which isn't already in use, blocking a few additional isn't going to make much difference. Our username policy gives a fair indication on what is required (see below). Once they've created that account there is a load more policy which they will likely run afoul of, have articles deleted, edits reverted, warnings posted to their talk pages... In the inappropriate edits/articles stakes no one seems to argue we should just let it ride in case we upset a new user, we're here to write an encyclopedia after all. In both cases it's really about how well we deal with the situation, if we spend some time explaining the problem to people then my experience matches pschemps and they are usually understanding (if not always in total agreement).

In contrast to that, in line with most of our policies they require some interpretation and applying some common sense to them. The username is rightly quite detailed (perhaps more so than other policies would be) as it is likely to be the first point of contact of many users. We should however be treating it in the same manner, some usernames may fall foul of the policy by the letter of that policy, but common sense says they are fine - we shouldn't block those. Likewise some will be fine by the letter of the policy but clearly inappropriate, we should block those. --pgk 09:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:FlamingKC Vandalizing my profile, and harassing me

FlamingKC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

If you look at my talk section for my profile (User talk:Kris Classic), "FlamingKC" has gone to my talk section and is just spamming there. His name even says Flaming KC, obviously short for KrisClassic. He has created an account just to harass me, so I request an IP ban. Kris Classic 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• {{usernameblock}} applied. 〈REDVEЯS〉 13:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Kris Classic 13:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] constant personal attacks despite my pleading to stop

on Talk:Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II I have been personally attacked an enormous number of times, I constantly ask the two users (User:Xx236 and User:Tulkolahten) to stop but they never do. I have tried to remain civil but it is near impossible when I am called a liar and a Nazi and a revisionist (citing the original sources nonetheless is revisionist).

here is some of the discussions: 1 234 (the last one I even get called a stalker)

While I admit I have become uncivil, I have not fallen to personal attacks like them. I have asked them a plethora of times to stop, one instance is: (me)I would like to ask for an apology Tulko, I have ignored your personal attacks long enough, and it is starting to get on my nerves. consider this your final warning before I report you, now please apologize. (Tulkolahten replies) inter arma silent leges

Please do something! this has gotten unbearable.

--Jadger 06:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that they are mostly being rational. I left a single warning to Xx though. Also, I'd like another admin to review this. Ashibaka (tock) 16:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dummy account, for vandalism only, with my username

I'm not sure where to report this, but User:Cornellrocky was created only to continue a constant pattern of deleting a paragraph from Carfax (company). Clearly, this username is also one letter different than mine, so I'd like to request a permanent block. Cornell Rockey 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion on the nature of his edits, blocked under WP:USERNAME for impersonating you. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Cornell Rockey 17:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I think Olir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) needs to be banned becuase he or she keeps arguing with me about blink-182's genre by claiming that they're simply "punk rock" and not "pop-punk". Lots of users here have agreed that they are "pop-punk". This guy has been doing this a couple times and I'm getting tired of this. That's why I'm requesting him or her to be banned to avoid this edit war. Some of this happened months ago on the The Offspring article about what their genre really is, but I don't think anyone got banned from this. Anything an administrator could do would be helpful. Alex 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't ban users because they have different views. Please try to discuss the matter further w/ them at the article talkpage and their talkpages. If nothing is reached then refer to mediation. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)