Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive347

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:Tkguy at Asian fetish 1.1 Tkguy side of the story 2 Page blanking (noticeboards) 3 Userpage masquerading as an article 4 Indef Blocked user might be back 5 User not getting the point about sockpuppetry 6 3RR violation on VanBrigglePottery and 72.11.124.226 7 Needs handling 8 Pierceshow (talk · contribs), TheBrianP (talk · contribs) 9 Continued problems by User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161 10 Apology 11 obvious AFD socks 12 Sock puppet of Burntsauce 12.1 Rather strange 13 Question: User talk:65.35.219.74 - Disruption via {{NoAutosign}}? 14 Dissruptive Editing by user Koonleg50 (talk · contribs) 15 Judgesurreal777's deletion game 16 Gerda9 17 Phantomhacker (talk · contribs) 18 Elkman blocking himself? 19 Possible ban 20 AntsOnNuts 21 Jinxmchue IP rangeblock 22 Ireland101 and Tsourkpk 23 User:Ireland101's behaviour 24 Dawat-e-Islami threat 25 User Barefact (talk · contribs) and personal attacks 26 User:146.115.43.96 continues censoring wikipedia in numerous edits 27 Y2008 bot bug 28 Move protect/deletion request 29 2008 article 30 Someone's putting erect penis photos all over Wikipedia 31 Template:Do not remove (resolved) 32 Block by admin User:Sandstein 33 Block on DarkFierceDeityLink--too lenient? 34 Possible conflict of interest 34.1 What Happened 35 User:FCYTravis 36 Moldopodo (talk · contribs) & Ungurul (talk · contribs) 36.1 Moldopodo complains about Ungurul 36.2 Ungurul complains about Moldopodo 36.3 Time to block both? 37 Nrswanson article hijack attempts 38 LHC link addition 39 Cyric the whatever, back as anons - harassment (Resolved) 40 User:Jim62sch (resolved) 41 Fastnaturedude threatened 42 Harassment by User:Elonka (apparently resolved) 43 User:Tenkasei Ryo (resolved) 44 unblock(pardon) user:71.149.161.91 45 User:Sensevivid

[edit] User:Tkguy at Asian fetish

I discovered this apparently disruptive SPA user through an RfC. User continually accuses other parties of bad faith, misrepresenting sources,[1] and racism.[2] (See also asking LaraLove to intervene in against the "racist" re-definition of Asian fetish) User appears to be promoting an original theory about the causal link between the Asian fetish and suicide, and insists upon including questionable sources—edit warring to user's preferred version. (See prior 3RR block) I think Tkguy should step away from this topic. Cool Hand Luke 02:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• This user has engaged in a variety of problematic behavior. I don't think he is interested in building a NPOV encyclopedia; rather, he wants to use Wikipedia as his personal soapbox. He has engaged in few or no edits outside of the topic of Asian sexuality.

• First edit.
• First signs of blatant POV-pushing
• Removes two reliably sourced statements, and accuses other participants of bad faith
• Another WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal of sourced material.
• More blatant POV-pushing
• More accusations of bad faith and POV-pushing
• More accusations of bad faith in edit summary
• Claims he shouldn't have to follow sourcing policy
• Threatens edit war
• More accusations of bad faith
• Yet another insulting edit summary
• More unsourced POV
• Attempts to shift burden of proof to anyone opposing his edits
• Commits 3RR and responds rudely to a warning
• Blocked on Nov. 29 for WP:3RR violation
• Unblocked after he promises not to do it again
• Accuses other participants of sockpuppetry, with no evidence
• Requests full page protection on his version
• Accuses another editor of "vandalism" for opposing his edits
• Invalid AIV report
• Inserts conjecture into article
• Adds material sourced to a student newspaper

• I grow tired of summarizing. Suffice to say he is continuing the same nonsense. He's accused me of "vandalism" at AIV, which was immediately removed, and continues to assume bad faith of other users and attempting to WP:OWN the article. He also persists in adding blog posts and other nonsense after being advised that they are not reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 02:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

At my talk page (User talk:Saranghae honey#Asian fetish) he accused me several times of having an agenda to mitigate the article when I was merely copy editing the article. When I removed external links because there was an excessive number, he said it will be my "last and final warning" for my "vandalism." This is not the first time he has engaged in a disruptive edit war as you can see from Crotalus's comment. He has also engaged in an edit war with User:Christopher Mann McKay and User:Kaitenbushi. Before I requested RfC for the article he frequently singled me out in his edit summaries and accused me of "gross manipulation." миражinred 03:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

From RfC at Asian fetish He has accused me of being a vandal and someone with an agenda to mitigate the article in question ([3][4] , his edit summaries used in the article, and the section below) against WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. миражinred 03:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was 3rr blocked but I was introduced to the 3rr rule by Chris Mann Mckay. I explain to the admin that Chris Mann Mckay and Kaitenbushi were working together to trick me into violating the 3rr rule. If you look on my talk page this is apparent. I actually had my 3rr block removed. Kaitenbushi was 3rr blocked. Chris Mann Mckay only reverted the page 2 times so was not blocked. But apparently the guy is a vandal on many other pages and was 3rr blocked not just for 24 hours but for 48 hours. If you look at his talk page you will notice that people were very much aware that he had barely avoided the 3rr block on the Asian fetish page. [17:19, 30 November 2007 Chris's talk page] so I am pretty confident his actions on the Asian fetish page caused him to get a longer block sentence. But still most of the references above were from when I started out and when I was dealing with these two. I encourage you to read my talk page on a summary of the kind of edits that Chris Mann Mckay did. My summarization convinced many to 3rr block him. Here's the link to the 3rr report board [Revision as of 02:19, 29 November 2007 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]. Much of the above is my interaction with Kaitenbushi and Chris Mann Mckay.

[edit] Tkguy side of the story

First off this page has a history of being vandalized. It has been requested for deletion twice and possibly more times, notably one time by Saranghae honey. Cool Hand came to this page because Saranghae honey wanted rfc on the definition to be used on the page. This rfc was requested by Saranghae honey at, I believe, the advice of Lara❤Love. I had a problem with the definition that Saranghae honey put in as it prominently used a quote from a the colorq.org site that was determined to be an invalid source. Even today this definition is still up with the reference to the invalid source placed prominent as the first entry in the page. During this arbitration rather than commenting on the definition I provided Cool Hand Luke and Lara❤Love started writing about how the page should have a WP:LEAD rather than a definition. I've brought up the fact that similar pages such as Sexism and Racism started out with a definition and not a WP:LEAD. Anyway, Cool Hand, also without discussing, removed a section on the Asian fetish page. Soon after Crotalus horridus came on and started to delete much of the content from the page. So I am in an edit war with Crotalus horridus, Saranghae honey, and Cool Hand Luke. I believe these people are determined to make Asian fetish out to be something benign. This is apparent in the way they delete items from the page and misrepresent the source data. If you read the talk page I have numerous examples of situation where people have been manipulating the source of the data. One big area this is done is with regards to Phoebe Eng's work. For a long time many people have used a small counterpoint she made in her book "Warrior Lesson" and made the claim that Phoebe thinks asian fetish empowers asian females. I read the portion of the book and discovered that this notion was actually derived from a two sentence entry in a chapter that was overwhelming negative on the topic of Asian fetish.

Here's what people put on the page [18:07, 21 April 2007 ]

“

Phoebe Eng has argued that not all Asians feel that the current trend of "Asian fetish" is bad, since it has given new sexual visibility and liberation to an otherwise invisible and disempowered minority

”

I realized that Phoebe Eng's work was being misrepresented and manipulated. I proceeded to add the actual quotes from the book that convey the notion that she was trying to convey and presented like so:

In order to provide a counterpoint to the overwhelming negative impact that Asian fetish has on the lives of Asian American females, Phoebe Eng wrote the following,

“

Not all of us, for instance, agree that the current trend of "Asian fetish" is bad. In fact, for some of us, the new visibility of Asian women, even though stereotyped, can actually be liberating.

”

Much of the chapter that people are referencing have a very negative bent towards asian fetish. Here are some quotes that accurately convey the much of the content of the chapter:

“

While hypersexualized, commodifying images exist for all women, and especially women of color, the image of the Asian woman combines with this the notion of ultrapassivity. Sexuality for an Asian woman is so tightly wound up in issues of power and global economic order that it is virtually impossible to address the spector of an Asian woman's sexuality without examining the subtle roles of governments and enterprise in perpetuating this situation, especially in developing countries.

”

“

a legacy of prostitution that began in the servicing of American and European soldiers has since flourished into a sex industry that has grown into a major source of foreign exchange that rivals the gross national product of many developing nations.

”

“

it is estimated that two or three thousand men each year find wives through mail-order catalogs.

”

Crotalus horridus proceeded to chop down my entry to the following:

Phoebe Eng wrote: ^[1]

“

Not all of us, for instance, agree that the current trend of "Asian fetish" is bad. In fact, for some of us, the new visibility of Asian women, even though stereotyped, can actually be liberating.

”

I believe this last quote should be removed from the Asian fetish page as it has long been used by many as a reputable source to claim that asian fetish helps asian females. I tried to remove it but the people I am edit warring with keep bringing it back.

As for Cool Hand, I been trying to get him to put an article by Raymond Fisman under the heading "Controversy" and not "Studies related to Asian fetish" as it gives the impression the article is an actual scientific study. This article was panned by many for claiming that a study proves that Asian fetish does not exist. He even acknowledged that this article is not a study with the comment to the changes he made with "The analysis is not a study, but one of the principle economists behind it has a pretty good handle on interpreting it." 20:37, 30 December 2007 yet he keeps putting it under the heading "Studies related to Asian fetish"!

here is my version of the entry 19:45, 30 December 2007 :

Raymond Fisman authored a controversial article on Salon that claimed that the existence of Asian fetish is a myth. Raymond used the results of a study, "Racial Preferences in Dating," that he helped to conduct to come to this conclusion. ^[2][3] A blogger at Hyphen found the study to be flawed.^[4] Journalist Moe Tkacik also expressed skepticism to the findings of the study.^[5]

here is the current version that once again has been chopped up and placed under the heading "Studies related to Asian fetish". This is obviously making an opinionated article out to be the study that was conducted. This is far from the truth and once again a gross manipulation of the source data:

Raymond Fisman authored an article published in Salon which claimed that the existence of Asian fetish is a myth. Raymond based his conclusions on the results of a study, "Racial Preferences in Dating," that he helped to conduct.^[6] The study, based upon speed dating experiments among Columbia University graduate students, found no general statistically-significant racial preference among males.^[7]

And this is the nature of the edit war we are having on the Asian fetish page. Nearly all the quotes and summarizations on the page I've found to be a gross misrepresentation and manipulation of the source data. Once again please look at the talk page for the many examples of such manipulations. I assure you that if you look at the edits I've done I have accurately let the sources "speak for themselves" and have been trying to bring back contributions on the page that have long been deleted by vandals. I assure you I am editing in "good faith". Because I've been trying to fix the gross manipulation of source data people are accusing me of being biased. I am not allowing people to manipulate other people's work to convey a meaning it never intended it to mean. Obviously such actions have been pissing people off.

Tkguy (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Tkguy, you have been told numerous times by me and other users that neither blogs nor your own personal opinions are reliable sources. You continue to place unsourced and poorly sourced material into the article. As long as you do this, it will continue to be removed. Salon is a reliable source; the two blogs you cited to impeach it are not. If the Salon article was indeed "heavily panned," as you claim, then please cite reliable sources justifying this statement. You simply do not seem to have (or be interested in obtaining) a clear understanding of how Wikipedia works. *** Crotalus *** 03:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First off the problem is that this opinionated article is being presented as a fact by being placed under the heading, "Studies related to Asian fetish". Only objective analysis of studies that present the findings of the study should deserve to be placed there. This is no such thing. The Fisman guy is deriving that the study proves that Asian fetish is a myth and caused a huge amount of controversy by doing so. And that's why it probably more fitting to put it under "Controversy" as it's a liberal interpretation of a study that caused a lot of controversy. As for blogs not being a valid source. It might be so for the Jezebel thing. But the hyphen one is probably valid as it's made by the managing editor Neelanjana Banerjee on blog that is part of Hyphen magazine. But still these blog references are not being used as the main source but to illustrate that the article was panned by the public. But that's beside the main point, that a biased opinion of one man is being presented as a scientific study. Once again this is the nature of the edit wars on the Asian fetish. Tkguy (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fisman conducted a study. Like all researchers, he drew a conclusion from the study. You don't like the findings of the study. You want to relegate it to the "Controversy" section. That's all there is to it. миражinred 04:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected. Please forward all future debate to the article's talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 05:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why one problem user should be able to get a page locked. Everyone except Tkguy had no trouble working together. *** Crotalus *** 06:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Crotalus. All other editors drained their time on reverting Tkguy's edits and struggling to improve the article. I (and I think other editors) was expecting some sort of solution that would prevent Tkguy from editing this article. On a more positive note, I guess we can spend the New Year's in peace. миражinred 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I considered simply taking this to RFPP, but the problem is only with one editor. The other editors use the talk page and even have constructive disagreements. The edit war is caused by this user who stubbornly insists on their version against all counterarguments. This same user caused the previous edit war (and previous page protection) with completely different parties. The problem with with Tkguy editing this article. Cool Hand Luke 08:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page blanking (noticeboards)

Semi-protected.

Could someone semi-prot this noticeboard and the fringe theory noticeboard, so people don't have to keep reverting IPs all night? Avruchtalk 03:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Argh - little edit to make the header show in peoples watchlists. Avruchtalk 03:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, its kind of funny to watch. The IPer has blanked it at least ten times, wonder when she/he/it will get bored. Avruchtalk 03:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, the vandal has to keep typing captchas, three admins who are watching the pages he's vandalizing just click a button. It's amusing to think of all of the different silly words the vandal has had to type over the course of an hour or so :P --slakr^\ talk / 03:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was just one person. While certainly there was an IP hopper attacking the page, the last IP was on a different continent from the rest. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahaha, didn't even think of that. Avruchtalk 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the same person. They're likely drones. --slakr^\ talk / 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Only concern I guess is if someone is trying to report something, they're going to get brutally conflicted. Avruchtalk 04:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My concern would be that if a valid IP has a concern and wants edit this page to add it, semi-protecting would block them out. When its semi-protected there should be a header on top pointing them somewhere that is being watched. MBisanz 08:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage masquerading as an article

This is not a HUGE issue, but I am seeking the advice of an experienced admin on this one. Isn't this kind of thing: see User:FFaF, generally frowned upon? I am not an administrator myself, but I tripped over this, and thought I should bring it here for further attention. This is the text of a deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klan Andlux. I know under certain conditions, deleted pages are allowed to be "userified" as a subpage of the main page, but I am not sure this usage qualifies. I am concerned that this may be confused with a "real" article. Any ideas on what should be done? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's spam: Wikipedia:CSD#G11 applies (as it does to ALL pages, regardless of prefix), and it's been so tagged. Time to go looking for more. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It was more specifically a recreation of an AfDed article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klan Andlux). --slakr^\ talk / 04:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Calton and Slakr for resolving that. It looks like the situation has been dealt with!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indef Blocked user might be back

bear with me, this is the first real report of this kind I've done

User:Booze broads and bullets was indefinitely blocked in Feb 2007 for persistent vandalism and uploading copyrighted materials. Shortly thereafter a new username popped up, User:Broads, which was determined to be a sock and subsequently indefinitely blocked.

I am making the assertion that User:THX2046 might be another sock of Booze broads and bullets.

The original incident reports on Booze and Broads were written in Feb 2007 and are found at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive193#User:Booze broads and bullets
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive193#Booze broads and bullets
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive193#User:Booze broads and bullets, again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive197#User:Booze broads and bullets persistent copyright offender
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive198#Banned user back with new account

At a couple of points this user has been referred to as 'banned', but it doesn't look like they have been formally banned, only indef blocked (i.e. they don't appear at Wikipedia:List of banned users.

1. On User:THX2046, they state "I AM A PEXER! BUT YOU HAVE TO GUESS WHO I AM! I AM ALSO THE LATE: B³"
   • I am taking "THE LATE: B³" to mean "Booze broads and bullets". No idea what "A PEXER" means.
2. User talk:THX2046 is littered with non-free image warnings
   • BBB was known for uploading non-free images, one of their hallmarks.
3. The very first edit for User:THX2046 was to re-create Bakekang.
   • This was also among the first actions of User:Broads (see deleted contributions), who only had 5 recorded edits in all.
   • Bakekang was also a target for BBB in the last days leading up to their indef block.
   • The timing is right as well ... BBB was indef blocked on 10 Feb ... Broads was created and indef blocked on 12 Feb ... THX2046 was created 19 Feb and began editing where the other two left off. Not to mention that, in April 2007, THX2046 replaced User talk:THX2046 with "I AM THE GUARDIAN ANGEL OF BAKEKANG" (version)
4. User:THX2046 has particular ... almost exclusive I think ... interest in Philippine television and film, including an emphasis on ABS-CBN programs.
   • This focus was also a hallmark of BBB's activities

That is as far as I've gotten. Note that THX2046 has been active since Feb 2007 and contributed >1500 edits according to the Contributions page. I suppose the question is whether to do nothing or do something. I am not sure where consensus with dealing with socks is at presently as I've not paid much attention to that aspect of Admin activities (User activity monitoring).

Thoughts? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A "Pexer" is a poster at the PinoyExchange forums. I haven't hanged around the TV/Film fora since it's very messy and the moderation is awful. --Howard the Duck 06:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the assertion that THX2046 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a block-evading sockpuppet of Booze broads and bullets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Broads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), based on editing patterns. Another similarity is that neither has made a contribution outside mainspace. I have blocked THX2046 indefinitely. I will also add Booze broads and bullets to the list of banned users (since no-one seems willing to unblock him) if there is no opposition to this here. Sandstein (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User not getting the point about sockpuppetry

User:Wikinger is evading his block (again). It is incredibly obvious that 83.5.16.168 is a sockpuppet; he is once again engaging in personal attacks and editing other people's comments. See User_talk:Wikinger#Blocked to understand. Please block, and in fact extend the block on the main account. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that it is probably just the users' IP address, wouldn't SSP be a better route here? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation on VanBrigglePottery and 72.11.124.226

WP:AN/3RR I believe VanBrigglePottery and 72.11.124.226 to be the same person. As they keep vandalizing the article Lakota people. As they keep reverting to the same POV wording on that page. As well the editing history of both users. Already one 3RR violation for VanBrigglePottery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakota_people&diff=prev&oldid=180888643

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakota_people&diff=prev&oldid=181197879

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakota_people&diff=prev&oldid=181066917

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakota_people&diff=181198137&oldid=180570412

I would also like to request of Semi-protection disables editing from anonymous users and registered accounts less than four days old to that article.--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you report this to WP:AN3 and WP:RFPP instead? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry I didn't know. thanks, --Duchamps_comb MFA 16:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs handling

Someone please take a look at these edits: [5] and [6] and [7], the latter 2 being where this IP used my picture off of my page and placed it on his talk page, and all 3 edits being personal attacks against me. -- ALLSTARecho 17:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I've blocked him so he can cool off but really why did you post a warning note in his talk page in the first place? All he did was to call a spammer scumbag off. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in violation of WP:NPA, all over the place. Check all of his contribs. That's why I posted a warning in the first place. -- ALLSTARecho 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bo;;ocks . I've reverted you. We don't welcome spammers. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pierceshow (talk · contribs), TheBrianP (talk · contribs)

This seems to be a sock-puppet account. Both usernames have created an article titled Brian Pierce today, claiming the subject of the article to be the current mayor of New Berlin, Wisconsin. The article has been deleted 3 times so far today under WP:CSD#G3. TheBrianP (talk · contribs) is also engaged in an edit war on the New Berlin article with 5 reverts so far today. SWik78 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, they might be related to Brian002100 (talk · contribs) who was a suspected sock-puppet and was blocked indefinitely on July 23 as a vandalism only account. SWik78 (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so Pierceshow created the article months ago. Suspect two different people with the same name. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued problems by User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161

• Magnonimous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) editing since 14 December 2007
• 24.36.201.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) editing since 5 December 2007

Articles

• Coral calcium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Coral Calcium Claims (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) created 20 December 2007 by Magnonimous

(Magnonimous has changed signatures for 24.36.201.161 to his own [8], so I'm assuming these are the same person.)

Magnonimous behavior problems continue and are getting worse. See previous ANI at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive343#User:Magnonimous.2F24.36.201.161

Since this last ANI, he has removed a number of tags including an afd notice from Okinawa Coral, the latest pov-fork of Coral calcium, and has spammed defamatory accusations to multiple talk pages: User talk:Ronz Talk:Stephen Barrett User talk:Magnonimous User talk:B User talk:KnowledgeOfSelf and User talk:Levine2112 --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Afd notice was added without justification, without notice or relevant talk, and went against the general consensus we had on the talk page. I believe MoonLightGlory's contribution removed significant amounts of POV content from the original quote-unquote Coral Calcium article, and seemed to relieve the edit warring, at least temporarily. In retrospect it seems ridiculous to add more POV content to an article to try to balance it. I wish I had done what he/she did in the first place, and removed that crackpot's ramblings from the original article altogether. Matter of fact, I think i'll go do that right now. Magnonimous (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I had NO IDEA :-] about the ban on canvassing. Where did my mind go hm hm hm. Secondly, it's hardly defamation if presented as an opinion on an opinion based page. Magnonimous (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify what Magnonimous meant by, "Matter of fact, I think i'll go do that right now." He replaced the content of Coral calcium completely by that of Okinawa Coral, which is up for deletion as a pov fork of Coral calcium. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Above action was not without relevant support: "I wouldn't be opposed to a complete stubbification of the article, removing all poorly referenced material. However, I see no reason to change the name. Okinawa coral is a subset of coral calcium, so redirecting would seem entirely inappropriate." Someguy1221, some might say this verges on consensus. Magnonimous (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrators, I apologize for my colleague's continued dredging up of past issues that you shouldn't have been bothered with in the first place --Magnonimous (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Magnonimous (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for ongoing disruptive conduct, including removal of AfD tags, recreation of deleted content forks, canvassing, abuse of article talk pages, WP:BLP violations, and a generally unconstructive approach. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good move. Alot of good material was being trashed by a couple editors who don't understand NPOV and the fact that all significant POV are included in Wikipedia articles as long as they are well sourced and written in an NPOV manner. We don't publish the "truth" here, we publish verifiable POV. That is regardless of whether they are considered facts, opinions, POV, "the truth", or whatever else one chooses to call them. What we don't publish is OR and articles that don't meet notability requirements. -- Fyslee / talk 20:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, as soon as he was blocked, Jerome709 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was autoblocked as a result. I'm assuming that means they are socks and based on the disruption I've seen from the two of them, I'd support a community ban. --B (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support the ban; this has been going on for too long. As I said in the first ANI report, Magnonimous is a clear spa, who every couple weeks gets an idea that no one agrees with, leading to edit wars, an ANI report, and warnings all around. The fact that he's also a sockpuppet suggests to me this account was created with the express purpose of editing tendentiously, while avoiding any consequences following him to his main account. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this just got more interesting [9]. If this claim is truthful, then 24.36.201.161 is a shared private proxy. The IP that left the message for me is an open proxy and I have now blocked it. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous if anyone is interested. I have removed the direct block on Jerome709 pending anything interesting from a checkuser. --B (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI to anyone following this, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous has proven Magnonimous and Jerome709 are working from the same computer. --B (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Sock of banned user blocked. miranda 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to state first and foremost and apology for ad hominen attacks on this website. However, what is more important to say is that I am not the vandal attacking Wookeepedia, nor am I EndoExo, GorgeHe, the Communism Vandal or any other troll on this site. I was only the CIyde Vandal and the Clap Vandal. I am trying to move on with life, and establish something more meaningful for myself. Therefore, I have no interest in childishly vandalizing and trolling this website as I had in the past. I am not sure how a CheckUser actually "confirmed" my vandalism as claimed by certain admins, but it isn't me. I actually edit productively on an anonymous account. Lastly, I understand why you would immediately delete this account and block my access to Wikipedia, but please listen and acknowledge the fact that I have discontinued vandalizing.

- Encyclopedist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merdanda (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt he is reformed, look at his edits to User talk:Merdanda. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was really hurt that he called me a faggot. I'm not a faggot, I'm a dyke- users who make inaccurate edits really shouldn't be editing at Wikipedia. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Love it, FisherQueen. ...don't you wish your username was hot like me....don't ya? :-P miranda 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Errm, that's Jonny the Vandal / Mike Garcia, not Encyclopedist. WP:RBI is the cure for that guy - Alison ^❤ 19:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] obvious AFD socks

Lastchild is apparently using sock puppets to disrupt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComicRack. S/he created the article. The socks are:

Solano2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

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

Clayton.Aguiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

The users both have very few edits and used similar arguments in the AFD. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Which of course is not true. I created this account to add an entry to my favorite ComicReader program (I guess almost everyone starts that way). I added an entry which was speed deleted in about 1 day. After a week i found out that a different person has made a ComicRack article. As it was marked again for deletion, I just added some comments to the deletion discussion board. I'm new to this wikipedia thing, but the experiences i had in the last 2 weeks have almost destroyed any liking i had for wikipedia. As i do not how to prove that i am not Lastchild, who this JetLover is, and in general in what beehive i've stuck my head, those who are in power here should do whatever they like. --Solano2k (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To a normal user like me, seeing your first and only (non-deleted) edit looks a bit suspect. The use of "Do not delete" has also shown to indicate a relative new-ness to Wikipediam whereas veteran users use "Keep". Will ^(talk) 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if they're socks or not, but while rzgofv's argument looks like lastchild's, solano's did not to me, and in fact, i supported a "keep" based on his argument for parity between the file format and the software supporting it. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD are discussions, not votes. So socks should not matter if they don't have valid arguments. I am not supporting socks but merely saying that the creators are wasting their energy.Congolese fufu (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't appear to be socks through Checkuser; it might be the case that a call to action was posted to some website or mailing list, but these appear to be different people. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed Solano2k. Sorry. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I originally commented on that AFD that it smelled like socks; specifically, User:Rzgofv made his first contribution there. I find it hard to believe that someone would create an account then make a beeline for AFD 21 minutes later. I brought this concern up with User:Snowolf but was told to WP:AGF. I did leave a note on User:Lastchild's talk page, but the user seems to have been offended, and accused me of personal attacks, so I just requested that they follow Wikipedia's policies and stepped back.

Also, I don't believe Solano2k is the same user; the style of writing and way that they formatted their comment on AfD was slightly different than Lastchild's, in a way that is pretty hard to fake. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 19:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppet of Burntsauce

Je suis un Hippo (talk · contribs) is claiming to be a sock of Burntsauce (talk · contribs). Corvus cornix_talk 03:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Blockinated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a sock puppet, more likely just some random troll stirring up trouble. Note he also claimed to be the banned Brian G Crawford. 75.175.21.206 (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that the single post IP evaluates what is or isn't a sockpuppet.[10] Durova^Charge! 11:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rather strange

When this sockpuppet identified himself on Burntsauce's talk page, he announced his name as Brian G. Crawford. After a quick search, it turns out there was a User:Brian G. Crawford (who is banned) and after a search into his contributions of both editors, it seems the sockpuppet had a problem with Kelly Martin, SlimVirgin and JzG [11] and it was no surprise when I looked at Brian G. Crawford's contributions had a dispute with these editors.

This is all very confusing considering Burntsauce was confirmed to have been meatpuppeting for User:JB196, a totally unrelated banned editor. Considering Brian G. Crawford = Burntsauce per that "confession" of sorts, I will tag Burntsauce as a sockpuppet of Brian G. Crawford, but it seems really, really strange that one banned editor, Brian G. Crawford, would create an account to become a meatpuppet for another banned editor, JB196. — Save_Us_229 17:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that tag, a claim made by an IP editor for whom we have no evidence of any connection to either is not a valid basis on which to make such a claim. —Random832 18:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Do we have any evidence linking this to Burntsauce? I've been in contact with him via e-mail, and Brian G. Crawford is not Burntsauce's real-life name. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you have been in contact with him enough to know that. In any case, User:Je suis un Hippo is tagged as a Burntsauce sockpuppet, so besides the 'confession' (which I guess is deemed invalid), why is User:Je suis un Hippo still tagged as a Burntsauce sockpuppet? Shouldn't it be moved to a Brian G. Crawford sockpuppet? — Save_Us_229 19:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question: User talk:65.35.219.74 - Disruption via {{NoAutosign}}?

This is probably a new one for all you admins. User talk:65.35.219.74 added {{NoAutosign}} to their talkpage. This would be perfectly fine if they weren't (deliberately?) leaving their comments unsigned. Diffs:[12] and [13] (which contains an attack against SineBot as well). Could this be considered disruption? NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 14:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not constructive. The editor's contributions suggest that constructive editing may not be the point. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, not disruption. Now if someone could tell them that WP:NOT and others doesn't apply to Lamest edit wars, then maybe they would quit vandalising too. I'd do it but I usually unintentionally make things worse.NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it would help much, all things considered. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dissruptive Editing by user Koonleg50 (talk · contribs)

This user has been engaging in disruptive editing practices for the past week on wing chun and WingTsun. This includes consistently adding WP:OR, and altering references and referenced sections. I have tried to help and compromise by working in some of the material in to a non WP:OR and a WP:NPOV format, yet he continues to revert and push more WP:OR. He also keeps insisting on wikifying a group of words on the WingTsun page, even though he's been told by other editors and my self that no such page exists, please stop per the established guidelines. He has been engaged via the talk pages for those entries as well and has had it explained how he needs verifiable references. He responded with more WP:OR, followed by more reverts on the main pages along with an addition of a link to his personal blog for a reference. The user has also used multiple anonymous IP's. I'm requesting administrator intervention. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Koonleg50 for 24 hours for edit-warring and disregard of WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. In the future, it's preferable to get an admin involved before reaching 8RR on both sides, as you've both technically violated WP:3RR. However, since it appears from my review that Koonleg50 is clearly editing against policy while you are reverting to a stable and well-sourced version, I've blocked him alone rather than both of you. Call it WP:IAR if you like; it's open for review as always. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it and apologize for my part. I guess I thought by continuing to try and reason with him on the talk page it would finally get through. If he does it again after the 24 hour block or from an anonymous IP, I'll just come here right away. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judgesurreal777's deletion game

[edit] Gerda9

Gerda9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account concerned only with repeatedly creating Future food. User completely refuses to engage in any discussion either on his/her own talk page or the article talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

False accusation. The user was not greeted in polite way. The repeated deletion of their contributions may naturally be considered as an annoying harassment of a newcomer. I suggest you to review Don't bite newcomers and WP:VANDAL before labelling someone "vandal". Also, please assume good faith to understand that the person simply does not know wikipedia ways and places to talk. `'Míkka>t 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, no one has left a note requesting that this user engage in discussion - I see only templated deletion messages on the talk page. I left a note asking the user to stop re-creating the page and instead discuss the reasons why it's being deleted. If they keep going with article re-creations after that, then a block would be in order. MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Could the page be salted, may be easier? Whitstable (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[ec] Awesome! "protect" on redlinks. I love that. I've given it six months, it's clear the time is not yet ripe but it might be one day. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is already resolved, but:

I only used the vandal tag as a way to easily expand the user's contribs, talk page, logs, etc. I wasn't implying the user was a vandal.

The templated deletion messages on the user's talk page do invite discussion, which invitation the user has not accepted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand; I use those templates myself, and I'm not accusing you of anything. I've just become a bit more sensitive to how forbidding and unintuitive Wikipedia's system has become, so I try (not always successfully) to err on the side of a more personalized and informative message when time permits. Anyhow, it looks like things are resolved, and I didn't mean to imply you'd done anything wrong. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken, MastCell. I just wanted to clarify since I was challenged. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phantomhacker (talk · contribs)

Phantomhacker (talk · contribs) - is this person's User page grounds for indef. blocking? Corvus cornix_talk 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've given a final warning. Hut 8.5 19:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just some fool kid. I'd like to go to his talk page and taunt him "Go on then" but I wont. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elkman blocking himself?

This is bizarre. I guess it's related to the User:Jinxmchue discussion above. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a bizarre self-enforced wikibreak? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 08:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a stunned message on his talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And I've unblocked him. -- tariqabjotu 08:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I spy satire. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• don't worry, admins do this all the time. I can list at least four other admins who've done this ;-0--Phoenix-wiki 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Raymond Arritt (talk) raises hand sheepishly... it was an accident, honest —Preceding comment was added at 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

They aren't supposed to do that, per the blocking policy, right? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thar's right.Although it's less damanging than it was in the days before logged in users could edit from blocked IP ranges. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible ban

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Silly people, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Redspork Friend001 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of House1090 for relevant information. Redspork Friend001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), another House sock as per the checkuser, did this in an attempt to get Redspork02 (talk · contribs) into trouble. House has used a variety of socks and has generally been a right pain, see things like this, this and this, and so as far as I am concerned he is Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban. I post here for review and to see if anyone disagrees. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support While he was not a good editor, some of his editing interests coincided with mine. So while I support the notion of a community-ban, I'd appreciate not mass-deleting all his articles, some of which I've provided references for, others of which I may find time to work on eventually. Amerique^dialectics 00:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AntsOnNuts

Links: AntsOnNuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Not too sure what to do. User:AntsOnNuts Has only made one edit but it could be interpreted as a threat - given the username - to vandalise in the future. WP:NOT a crystal ball, but...? Whitstable (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a threat, but I do see it as an account that will only be used for trolling. That diff is just an attempt at getting around BLP. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As EVula says, not an immediate threat, but keep an eye out for things worsening, and block if necessary. Anthøny (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just {{usernameblocked}} the account. It's clear from the comment that the username is intended to be construed in a vulgar manner. -- The Anome (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jinxmchue IP rangeblock

67.135.49.177 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) has been blocked for a month for abusing sockpuppet accounts (being a sockpuppet of Jinxmchue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)), despite his strenuous denial that he's been editing legitimately and not being a sockpuppet. I think Special:Contributions/67.135.49.177 will be instructive in determining why he's been disruptive.

I recently asked him a legitimate question about whether he plans to constructively edit any pages once the block expires. In response, he undid my edit with the edit summary "Undid revision 180656254 by Elkman (talk) - rv disruptive trolling (which won't result in the offender being blocked, of course)". That pretty much tells me that he doesn't plan to do any constructive editing.

I have blocked his entire range of IP addresses (67.135.48.0/23) for three months and protected the two user talk pages that he's been using. I'm reasonably convinced that he has no plans to edit Wikipedia except to make complaints about Wikipedia administration. Frankly, I'm tired of his continued abuse of his user talk page(s) to go on about his grievances. Since I've placed a rangeblock that may affect users of a small ISP based in Saint Cloud, Minnesota, I'm posting here to get feedback. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. That seems to be casting a rather wide net, for three months. Is he that disruptive? — Coren ^(talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh - definitely using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. Blocking an entire ISP seems too extreme. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A /23 block is only 512 IPs. These are all the anonymous edits from that range up to August 4th, 2007. Mr.Z-man 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate reading about these situations. being as careful and narrow as possible almost always lets them back in, then they get ip after ip blocked piece-meal, leading to frustration and irritation; blocking massive ranges which assure the editor can't get back in easily run the risk of blocking other contributors. I'd like to go with 'let them register', but that often falls on deaf ears, and the 'anyone can edit' clause. well, we're not precluding registered users, just IP vandals. I suppose the 'right' thing, by current WP standards is to unblock the range, but I keep thinking about all these declarations here on AN/I to crack down on vandals, and how wimpy they wind up being. Given that almost all were by the vandal in question, I say let them stand. The other IP in that range can register. ThuranX (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, the main account itself isn't blocked. So an anon only block on his IP range is going to let him edit from his account. Of course, this may be a good thing - it will force him to use an account rather than obfuscate behind multiple IP addresses. --B (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Forcing" someone to use a registered account is the wrong answer - it's a violation of the privacy policy, which states that editors may edit logged in or not. Can someone explain the point of blocking an ISP to prevent anon editing by a person whose main account isn't blocked? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom has imposed a sanction that editors are limited to one account before, so I don't see why that would be totally out of the realm of possibilities. I was more or less tongue in cheek about that part, though, obviously using an ISP block for an editor who isn't even blocked isn't quite right. --B (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm reconsidering the rangeblock based on the opinions above, but I'm going to wait until the morning (CST) to make the decision. I still don't think he has anything positive to contribute here, and I don't like the idea of users using talk pages to bash Wikipedia and its editors, but maybe the rangeblock is overkill. Other opinions are welcome. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The main account isn't even blocked. So right now, it's in a logically inconsistent state. It doesn't make sense to block the range if the editor can just edit using his account. So something needs to change - block the main account or unblock the range (or both).--B (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - also, it's not up to Elkman or any other single admin to tell an editor where they may or may not edit. The more I look into this, the uglier it looks. Guy should never have blocked an IP for sockpuppetry to begin with (editing anonymously is specifically allowed by policy, and cannot be "sockpuppetry"), and this answer to an unblock request only seems liable to inflame the situation rather than improve it. I still don't understand why this person was blocked, anyway - it looks to me like it was possibly over a content dispute, which should have gone to RfC or some other form of dispute resolution. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Has the IP/Jinxmchue edited outside of his usertalk space since the block? If all he's doing is being obnoxious on his IP usertalk page, and he's not actually disrupting articles or editing other spaces, then a range block definitely seems like overkill. Right now, he's just ranting on his IP usertalk page. I'd suggest semi/full-protecting the talk page with a clear explanation that he's abusing it. If he starts using his dynamic IP to evade the block and edit article-space, then a range-block might be appropriate. Just my 2 cents. Also, Jinxmchue edits to provoke a reaction and constantly seems to be in a state of barely contained rage. I still have a couple of... er... colorful emails he sent me after I blocked him for 3RR long ago. He's best ignored or flyswatted rather than nuked. MastCell ^Talk 06:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Videmus, I think (though am not entirely certain) that JzG blocked the IP because Jinxmchue was using it to evade a block on his main account. That was a correct block. As for range blocking to stop an unblocked editor from editing? That's a different story. --B (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, there was no block evasion - the IP was blocked for 31 hours on 30 Nov by Adam Cuerden. On 2 Dec, Guettarda blocked the main account for "block evasion" on the IP even though that block had already expired. On 3 Dec Guy blocked the IP for sockpuppetry. Unless I'm missing something, the only good block is Adam's. And the more I look at that IP's talkpage the more it looks like a volatile person was cyber-bullied and provoked into getting mad on their talkpage, which was then used as an excuse for talkpage protection and "harrassment" and "trolling" accusations. That is a thoroughly despicable tactic. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP was being used to evade the block put in place by Adam, so blocking the IP was the right decision. Blocking the IP for a month instead of merely blocking it for the time of the original block was a bad decision. --B (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Adam blocked the IP, not the account. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 08:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, 15:17, 30 November 2007 Adam blocks the IP for 31 hours. Jinxmchue edits with his account starting at 20:24, 30 November 2007 and continuing until blocked by Guettarda at 00:23, 2 December 2007 for block evasion. The IP does not edit until after that block expires, so yes, you are correct and I was wrong. --B (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam blocked Jinx for a 3RRvio. After he was blocked, he switched to his logged-in account, and was editing outside of his userspace before the block expired, and was repeating the same edits for which he was blocked. So I re-set Adam's block, and posted notice of the block here. 35.9.6.175 (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are you? --B (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Guettarda here. 35.9.6.175 (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, yes, I agree your block was 100% correct. JzG's block is the one about which I said I was mistaken. --B (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, why are there edits from your IP to Natalie Erin's talkpage that say "natalie erin is a big dyke"[14] or "natalie erin is bitch ass dyke"[15]? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I did an IP lookup - it's the IP for Michigan State University, so there's going to be quite a lot of users on that IP. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam's right ... it appears to be the computer lab at MSU. Many people could be using that/those computers. Antandrus (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the rangeblock and the two protections I just placed. As for the existing block of 67.135.49.177 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log), that's a block that JzG (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) placed, and I'm not going to undo that -- that's wheel warring.

Apparently, I'm the one who screwed up here. Apparently, I can't do things correctly around here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 07:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing a one-month block 29 days into it would not be wheel warring. --B (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I placed an unblock request on the IP talk page, and request a neutral review. This looks to me a bad block by Guy. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It was placed because of disruptive edits using that IP (which had no evidence of other uses, so no obvious danger of collateral damage) combined with querulous complaints on the admin noticeboard, the while absolutely refusing to admit to any fault, notably with these: [16] [17]. It seemed pretty unambiguous to me, he admitted it was Jinxmchue. Jinxmchue and his IPs do little other than edit war and push their POV. We should waste less time with such foolishness and concern ourselves instead with helping those editors who are capable of presenting minority POVs without the attendant problems that editors like this bring. It's pretty clear that this editor has used and will continue to use IPs and his account in combination to evade scrutiny and blocking, and there seems to me to be adequate support for editors with a problematic history being required to keep to one account. No provacy violation exists, Jinxmchue freely admits these are his IPs on his user page. Jinxmchue needs, in my opinion and I'm guessing that of Felonious and others, to "shape up or ship out". Guy (Help!) 10:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

But the point is, it's logically inconsistent to block his IP when his account is not blocked. --B (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's more of an argument to block the main account too than anything else. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against anything other than logical consistency. --B (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy - if the reason was blocking was edit-warring or POV-pushing, why does the block log say that it is for sockpuppetry? And why a month? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As to whether 1 month is an appropriate block length for edit-warring/POV-pushing, it may be, given that this user (as both User:Jinxmchue and various IP's) has run up a number of prior 3RR blocks in a short time and has continued to edit-war. As to why the block log gives sockpuppetry as a reason, I don't know, though my suspicion is that there were multiple issues which Guy deemed block-worthy (recidivist edit-warring, POV-pushing, block evasion) and he grabbed one from the drop-down menu. As to whether the IP should be unblocked, or Jinxmchue blocked, or some other combination of actions, I have no opinion beyond the one expressed above - that this is an irascible editor spoiling for a fight, and others have obliged him. MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I can speak to the quality of Jinxmchue's edits, but the actions on the other side seem to be an unworthy attempt to short-circuit the dispute resolution process by unwarranted use of admin buttons. I'm particularly concerned by FeloniousMonk's actions - he apparently was involved in the dispute, then placed an {{IPsock}} template on the IP userpage against the user's will, then protected the page while involved in the dispute. I don't have any involvement in the Intelligent design/Dominionism area (except for a long-ago dispute regarding non-free images); it seems that users involved in this area are willing to engage in tag-teaming and provocation to enforce their point of view on the articles involved. I'm not saying the blocked user was correct, I'm saying that there seems to be some questionable use of admin buttons by users involved in the dispute. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And I think that;s an assumption of bad faith, and extending greater good faith to an edit warrior than to several long-standing contributors. I picked one moth because that's what I usually use in cases of block evasion using what appear to be stable IPs - I use a week or less if the IPs seem to be reallocated frequently. Feel free to help the user fix his behaviour problems, though. I don't think that would be at all controversial. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, this doesn't explain why you blocked for sockpuppetry when there was no sockpuppetry. I can't even see that there was any block evasion. Can you please explain (citing policy as necessary) the reasons for your block? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Violating his block by editing logged out

1. 1st block of Jinxmchue for 31 hours, 1 December 2007
2. Editing from the IP during the block on 3 December 2007
3. 2nd block for evading the first, 3 December 2007

Admiting that he violated the block: "Nope. Block period has passed. (I even logged out to see if I got the block message, which I didn't and knew I wouldn't.) Please go harass someone else or find yourself in danger of losing adminship."

Admiting the IPs are his:[18][19][20][21][22]

Your frantic arm waving and claims about Jinxmchue being the aggreived party here are as baseless as they are disruptive, as is your grudge filing against me at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31#Template:IPsock and attempt to ban another who's opposed Jinx's disruption at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jim62sch. Your time and effort would be better spent finding constuctive ways to contribute to the project rather than stirring up drama and settling old scores... it's becoming disruptive and appears to be spreading. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "evidence" shows that the user didn't edit outside of user talkspace during his block. Would you also care to explain your protection of the user's IP userpage while you were in an editing dispute with the user? Your time and effort would be better spent engaging in constructive ways to avoid conflict, rather than misusing your admin buttons. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, are you kidding? His userspace is User:Jinxmchue. During the block he edited his IP talk page, WP:AN/I, 6 times total and my talk page, twice. All while he was blocked.

When you are so wrong on the basic facts Videmus, how do you expect us to take your other claims at face value? In addition to getting simple but crucial facts flat wrong I don't think you understand how Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Enforcing_bans, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks, Wikipedia:SOCK#Blocking and Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging apply here well enough to be making the accusations and slinging the mud you have been. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

<This is the sort of attack you can expect if you run afoul of the WP:Intelligent Design folks. Nothing above explains the bullying, intentional provocation, or out-of-process page protection FM has engaged in, but we get plenty of ad hominen. Thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother. When you are shown to get the most basic and crucial facts wrong you blame me for providing the diffs pointing it out and claim I'm bullying? Right. That's called 'victim bullying', and it won't get you too far. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland101 and Tsourkpk

User:Ireland101 is impersonating an administrator by threatening me with a block here [[23]] as well as here [[24]]. He has joined some sort of counter-vandalism unit and is pretending to have the ability to block me. This constitutes bullying and harassment and I would like file a complaint against his behavior. He is very aggressive, seldom consulting the discussion edit before making controversial edits, and accuses everyone who undoes his edits of vandalism and sockpuppetry, as his contribs log attests. He has repeatedly slandered me by baselessly accusing me of vandalism and sockpuppetry, and has even tried to "eliminate" editors who disagree with his views by trying to frame them for tag-teaming, as can be seen here [[25]]. His attempts to intimidate and silence thos who oppose his views are extremely dangerous to Wikipedia, and I would like to request that he be disciplined.--Tsourkpk (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any of the other particulars of this situation, those are standard messages and it's widely accepted that non-administrators are allowed to use them. —Random832 06:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not surprised this Tsourkpk is trying to make these allegations about me, as he has a history of simular attacks. They are all false. I have never claimed to be an administrator. I am a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit and WikiProject on user warnings all I did was use the appropriate templates on this users talk page after vandalism. I never claimed to be an administrator and take offense to this personal attack. As this is not Tsourkpk first time and has been warned I suggest action be taken. Ireland101 (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What I did is not vandalism. He accuses EVERYONE who disagrees with his views of vandalism. Take a look at his contribs log, just about every edit summary contains the word "vandal". He is using the templates to try and initimidate me. This is classic bullying and needs to stop. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides that fact that most of my contribs no not contain the word "vandalism", I do allocate time to correct vandalism in the encyclopedia. I am in no way trying to intimidate anyone, I am just going by the WikiProject on user warnings. You shouldn't fear anything if what you have done is right. Recent types of vandalism by this user have been removing sourced text from articles and adding incorrect unsourced un-encyclopedic text to articles. Ireland101 (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

None of your "sources" even come close to meeting WP:RS and are only intended to push a particular POV. This is why all your edits have been undone by myself and other users (whom you have also tried to silence). --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The source in question is the National Center for Biotechnology Information. This is defiantly a reliable source. Please stop with the false accusations. Ireland101 (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So that I do not need to start a new thread this is were I am reporting this user.

Tsourkpk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Repeated vandalism in many articles. Has been warned numerous times however has chosen to delete many warnings on talk page. Has been warned to Level 4. Examples of vandalism:

• removing sourced academic study calling it vandalism repeatedly[26], [27].
• added incorrect text that is unsourced to article repeatedly [28], [29]
• made changes against talk page decision [30]

There are many other examples. What is striking is that all of these changes were made in about one hour. Action needs to be taken. Ireland101 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sheer nonsense. None of the "sources" even come close to meeting WP:RS. Regarding the Greeks article, the source is original resrach and is unsuitable for Wikipedia. As for Bryges, all I did was undo weasel wording. This is bullying and an attempt at intimidation. If any action needs to be taken, it is against Ireland101. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys need to try WP:Dispute resolution. I strongly suggest that you consider mediation as there isn't very much that ANI can do - in neither case is there blatant vandalism or bad faith edits. --B (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The source about the Greeks appears to be reliable. It is published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information which is part of the United States National Institutes of Health, a scientific agency. I don't know about the other two though. --Hdt83 ^Chat 07:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hdt83 thank you for posting your finding, Tsourkpk seems focused to making people believe it is not a reliable source. I do not know of the other sources Tsourkpk is talking about, as this is the only one I have added that I can remember. Ireland101 (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tsourkpk, I think you really need to rethink your entire editing strategy hear. I see in your contributions history plenty of revert warring and use of somewhat hostile edit summaries. Especially in this most recent edit war, I see very little evidence you actually tried to discuss the issue. What you have to realize is that edit warring without discussing the content dispute at hand is plainly an unacceptable practice. Even after reverting vandalism, you're accountable for that revert, and expected to provide a reason if asked (reason here is more than just listing policy shortcuts, you should be able to explain how they're being violated). As for the issue at hand, except perhaps for blatant attack sites or personally published work, determining whether a source is unreliable is something that is going to require discussion. Not to satisfy yourself, of course (I'm sure you've already made up your mind), but to satisfy everyone else and arrive at consensus; for if you don't, then any admin is just going to see this as an edit war and block you if it continues. And when you can't reach an agreement (which I don't see evidence of your even trying) you ask other editors for their opinions through requests for comment or the less formal requests for third opinions. And last but not least, always keep in mind that neutral point of view is about confining included points of view to those that are noteworthy and reliably sourcable, and not about keeping out any point of view that might be considered offensive. So to put this all in a nutshell: Except when reverting very obvious vandalism, you should try more discussion and dispute resolution, not because you might be wrong, but because admins don't care if you're right; edit warriors get blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ireland101 has already been warned not to try to impose tiny-minority views on Wikipedia. The study in question simply regurgitates the findings of an earlier and extremely controversial paper by Arnaiz-Villena and his politically-motivated colleagues in Skopje, using a single genetic marker to make far-reaching claims about the origins of the Greeks. Naturally, the results have been seized upon by racists and nationalists with a bone to pick against Greece. However, as the Arnaiz-Villena paper has been comprehensively discredited by mainstream geneticists, anti-Greek activists have turned to the more recent Tunisian study which uses the same single genetic marker, i.e. the same methodology for which the earlier paper was so vigorously criticised by Cavalli-Sforza et al.: "Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics." In other words, the source fails to satisfy WP:V. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Kékrōps you are ether mistaken or deliberately misleading people. The study in question is not the Arnaiz-Villena paper. Ireland101 (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ireland101's behaviour

I couldn't help noticing what this user has been doing recently since from his very start on Wikipedia he obviously aimed at pushing some sort of agenda into so many articles - thus getting into many conflicts. What I think is he needs to get some sort of a formal warning so he stop pushing for the same things in so many articles (most of them totally irrelevant to his ideas) and most of all to stop calling people vandals for every single revert of his edits. I'd think he might not know what a vandal is, but since he's got the current infoboxes on his page he ought to be well acquainted with the subject. Just to prove my words he are his reverts on the Rosetta Stone article [31][32][33] It is obvious he is adding some pretty strange and poorly sourced info to the article (as a few editors tried to explain to him on the talkpage, but he persists on pushing it. He has persistently referred to other editors as vandals despite the fact he got explanations as to why he was reverted. Here is the next example on Bryges where in his edit summaries he has strange comments like [34] [35] spiced with threats that a user'd be blocked. He are his reverts on Macedonian dynasty [36][37][38]- I'm not sure if this removal of NPOV as he describes it compiles with any policy. I was going to point to the Vergina Sun article as well, but the revision history is full of Ireland101's edits (and with word Vandal again). It's the same with Hellenization - I'll highlight just a few edit-summaries [39][40][41][42] Then comes Macedon with edits like [43][44] - he seems to be using the administrators as some form of a threat so the others do not try to edit the page (I'm only sure he lied when he said this). I already mentioned his edit-pattern and how he adds the same things to other articles as well (Samuil of Bulgaria, Republic of Macedonia, Justinian I, United Macedonia, Philip II of Macedon, Kalash‎ and so on. And moreover in all this articles he is editing against at least three or four other editors (that is on every single occasion). He got warned on a number of times by others on his talkpage (without anyone calling him a vandal), but as obvious he continues to do the same things. --Laveol ^T 10:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Worth notign that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ireland101_and_Tsourkpk is also about Bryges and Ireland101. He does seem to be pushing this Macedonian Identity thing pretty far and wide, and the rampant threats to get everyone else in trouble are pretty repetitive. ThuranX (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ireland101 has been placed on revert parole under the Macedonia arbitration case. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism (and changing content that he likes is not vandalism). Thatcher 02:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dawat-e-Islami threat

See this threat. Corvus cornix_talk 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And another - [45]. Corvus cornix_talk 19:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Outsider's comment Those are worrying; while the threats are highly unrealistic (if this sort of thing were possible we would've fallen to 4chan ages ago), they do seem to foreshadow that the article will be seeing some more activity... perhaps a semi-protection? Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 19:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need worry about the threats. I suspect the anon has severly underestimated the regular traffic we get. However I have semiprotected the article for a week to stop the vandalism. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tens of millions of Dawat members in small-town UK, eh? Avruchtalk 20:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing whether the person making the threat is a significant member of the organization (who can carry out this threat) and insignificant member. The one who made the threat could even be trying to make the organization look bad (a concept not unlike straw puppetry).Bless sins (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Barefact (talk · contribs) and personal attacks

Barefact (talk · contribs) has made a personal attack against me before [46]. He has been warned before for doing this: [[47]] but no action was taken except a warning. Thus realizing no action was taken last time, he did it here again: [[48]]. He calls me a "militant ethnic editor". I should not have to tolerate this, but do not want to escalate my language to his level. I explained the logic of my revert in the talkpage of the article and the issue was an editorial dispute. But his labeling [[49]], which he has been warned for before , makes resolving future editorial disputes harder. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's anything more here, these diffs are only deserving of another warning. Two incivil acts seperated by 10 months don't warrant administrative attention. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like another adminstrator to take look. Specially in the light of the first attack and the second one. Also taking into consideration the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan articles which covers Turkish and Iranian articles and demands civility from users. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:146.115.43.96 continues censoring wikipedia in numerous edits

Many of his edits relate removing cited information on negative receptions that a band he likes has gotten.[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][[60]

He has been warned numerous times against doing this.[61] Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor hasn't consistently removed information, given that the 146.115.43.96 (talk · contribs) contribs' are few and far between. I don't see the text all that damaging, but the album did receive some positive feedback based on a general Google query and that needs to be attributed as well, to provide a balanced viewpoint. The IP hasn't been given sufficient warning templates either.

This is also an issue that doesn't really require administrator attention. If the edit is disputed among several editors, including IP addresses, you should take it up with dispute resolution. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Y2008 bot bug

It seems that the vandal-reverting bots are lagging behind UTC time, and are putting "December 2007" when warning users (see [62]). Bot owners should try to fix this, since bots are probably going to give out hundreds of warnings by the time 2008 reaches the western hemisphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's likely that they are just in a different timezone to the Wikipedia servers, one where it's still December 2007 at the moment; give them time to see the New Year in. If it's still happening 24 hours from now, that's another matter. -- The Anome (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Two hours to go where I am. I'm still waiting for the Times Square ball drop :) Voice-of-All 03:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And I just saw the Space Needle's fireworks show. :^) -Jéské ^{(Auld lang syne)} 08:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move protect/deletion request

miranda 03:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Due to page move vandal by JtV, please move User talk:Jetlover to User talk:JetLover. Delete Jetlover's talk page. Also, move protect my talk page and user page and JetLover's too. Thanks. miranda 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And, protect this little fiasco, too. User_talk:Mr._Bracey. miranda 01:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 article

A vandal is superimposing graphic photos over the 2008 article. -Gilliam (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved and the vandal blocked. -- tariqabjotu 05:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What was the user that made the edit. I have a feeling he's a sock of someone; need it to perform a RFCU. —BoL 05:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop overreacting. WP:RBI. And Checkuser is not for fishing. —Kurykh 05:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The templates edited to add the images were {{Roman}} and {{Future}} by the way. Kesac (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And, for more beans, {{C21YearInTopic}}. -- tariqabjotu 05:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, call me crazy, but is PeeWee back despite the fact his IPs are blocked? —BoL 05:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK you are crazy, seriously who cares? We get vandals all the time. Stop overreacting. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Someone's putting erect penis photos all over Wikipedia

Image:Bbefore after.jpg Image:Ejaculate.JPG

Look where they link to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagittarian Milky Way (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely PWeeHurman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blow of Light (talk • contribs) 05:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How desperately sad, or is it sadly desperate? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, ??? —BoL 05:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Blow of Light, please assume good faith. What proof do you have to offer us about the indentity of the vandal? Daniel 05:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to blacklist the images? How is that done for Commons images? Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, guess I have to explain things all over again. You see, when the PeeWee vandal hits, he usually mentions something about penises on user pages, or articles, in which all of them are protected right now. His IPs aren't supposed to be unblocked until later this month. And as for the Commons images, you need to blacklist them in commons or something. —BoL 05:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Said behaviour isn't exclusive. Using the same rationale, you're a sockpuppet of a bunch of other users who abuse their userspace. See the flaw? Asserting "Definitely PWeeHurman" without any evidence to confirm it is irresponsible, and something that got you into trouble with your old account. Daniel 05:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've been watching me and the others. More like Meats. You know what I mean? And I do have evidence, look at the MO, man, he puts penises, although you do got a point there, he does it on mainspace and userpages, but this guy does it on templates. I'm speechless. —BoL 05:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course I have been watching you and the others — why wouldn't I, given the horrid past most of you have? Having a method which isn't mutually exclusive doesn't make this person a sockpuppet of the person you accused. Daniel 05:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

never mind... —BoL 05:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Easier perhaps to upload a local copy and blacklist it here. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Please see the history of Penis. There's more than one vandal attracted to that topic. Mr.Z-man 05:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Who's willing to do that? And call me crazy, is PeeWee back? —BoL 05:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The images can be blacklisted using MediaWiki:Bad image list. No local copy is needed. HOWEVER, if there are images that we are 100% sure are not going to be used on Wikipedia, administrators can upload and protect an image over top of the name to block them. I had suggested this a long time ago for any commons images that don't meet our content policies but get inserted into articles anyway, but it never went anywhere. --B (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blacklisted the two images. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As I suspected, the account wasn't who Blow of Light incorrectly accused (something he has a pattern of doing), but rather checkuser suggests it was Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Daniel 06:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK... —BoL 06:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Sergyz did "Future" and "21C" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

He's down though right? —BoL 06:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't been blocked yet. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah he has.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh never mind, there was no block warning on the page that's all. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have protected many of the templates used on year articles which I see no recent edits as high risk template to prevent vandalism of this kind going forward. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell cares who's doing it? Just revert, block, and ignore. No reason to claim it's one person or another. Giving them recognition is what causes more issues in the first place. Cowman109^Talk 08:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Do not remove (resolved)

While I do appreciate a good joke once and a while, I absolutely do not see why this template has been placed in the template namespace. Will someone move this to Gurch's userspace and delete it from the template namespace. — Save_Us_229 07:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this request belongs on AN/I, could just move it yourself and tag it for deletion. --Charitwo ^talk 07:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you thought about asking Gurch? - Alison ^❤ 07:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, non-AN/I material, tagging this as resolved.--WinHunter ^(talk) 07:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI - removed the CSD template (it was author requests deletion, posted by other than the author) and left a note here. Avruchtalk 07:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block by admin User:Sandstein

This involves a 3RR report I filed here. A relatively new user is trying to exclude a certain paragraph largely because he doesn't like a word in it. I told him on the talk page and in edit summaries that this content was sourced and that was not a reason to exclude it. He ignored my warning against edit-warring and reverted four times. I reverted three time. In response to my post about the 3RR violation, Sandstein blocked me for "edit-warring." Would other admins please comment on this action, and give their policy for blocking. "Edit-warring" is vague and subjective. It is unfair that admins block other users based on subjective judgments when other users would not be blocked for the exact same behavior in other situations by other admins. Arrow740 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Each decision is made on a case by case basis, apparently. Is there any webpage, where I can get more information about such blocks?Bless sins (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Here the policies applying would be WP:EW and WP:3RR. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR, that's the point. Arrow740 (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein blocked Imad marie (talk · contribs) as well, and that is what I would have done as well. It takes two to edit war. The fact that Imad was the first to revert should not disadvantage him, and allow you to call him out for doing the same thing you were doing (edit warring) simply because he hits four first; as WP:3RR says, "the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique". It was just you two reverting, with no edits in between. If you had not continued to revert, the edit war would have stopped. If Imad had not continued to revert, the edit war would have stopped. So, you should both be blocked for edit warring; you both committed the same infraction, numbers notwithstanding. -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong. I didn't violate 3RR, he did. Maybe you'll admit that. I already know your opinion; I should be blocked whenever I reach 3 reverts, even when combating sockpuppetry. By the (not quite coherent) philosophy you're espousing here, anyone who uses even two reverts could be blocked for edit-warring. You're giving yourself too much power. Arrow740 (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh common Arrow740, why do you think these fellows wanted to be an `admin` in the first place? Obviously to exercise power, of course they will give themselves `too much power`..And dont use too much confusing logical reasonings when dealing with Tariqabjotu or Sandstein, they wont be able to follow you, and you might end up being blocked again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.217.15 (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My two cents Sandstein's wrong. I took a look at the 3rr report and you've reverted vandalism 3 times. According to 3RR , removing vandalism is an exception to 3RR.

The 3rr shows, just as you said that IMADMARIE was removing sourced content and you were restoring it. The block needs to be removed - 3RR on ARROW740 never happened, per policy. Just my .2 Cents The Alien from another world formerly known as Kosh Vorlon, previously of Vorlon Homeworld, some where in the Taurus constellation —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all removals of "sourced content" are necessarily vandalism. See WP:VAND. P.S: Could you please shorten your signature, as per WP:SIG#Length? Sandstein (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I just checked and I didn't see what you were referring to. Either way, Arrow740 was

reverting vandalism. Imadmarie was vandalizing the article by removing properly sourced content on the grounds that he didn't like it. Arrow was restoring vandalism. Thus, according to policy, he's exempt from 3RR. Your block is stil wrong.
The Alien from another world formerly known as Kosh Vorlon, previously of Vorlon Homeworld, some where in the Taurus constellation
ps: About my signature - WP:SIG#LENGTH never explicitly states what constitutes too long of a signature - in one spot it states that signature should not be over two or three lines long - but that's as close as it gets to a length. Mine is less than two lines long. (1 1/2 lines in 1240 X 1084 screen size :) So, it looks like I'm safe with the sig for now :) )

[edit] Block on DarkFierceDeityLink--too lenient?

Can some other admins look at the 24 hour block I just placed on DarkFierceDeityLink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)? It relates to the user's increasing belligerence and incivility topped off by this gem. Now that I look back at the edit that set it over the edge, I'm thinking maybe I was a little too lenient. Thoughts? Metros (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I've only looked at his block log so far, but since he has already had a short block for incivility which didn't seem to curb him my first thought would be to up ot to medium term. Say a week. But like I said I haven't looked into the history. What provoked the ourburst? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DFDL warned EveryDayJoe45 with a vandalism warning and called him a "waste of sperm". I came along and changed the heading on that and warned DFDL for incivility. This prompted this discussion on my talk page. EveryDayJoe45 responded to DFDL with this which had a personal attack in it. EveryDayJoe45 was upset because he was warned for an article he has never edited and because he was attacked as a "waste of sperm" by DFDL. I warned him about the personal attacks which is when DFDL posted this to my talk page which prompted the blocking.

DFDL had been on my radar for the last couple of weeks because of vandalism to the Jamie Lynn Spears article and talk page which were completely out of line and violated BLP. Thoughts with this background information now? Metros (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DFDL's on my list after placing an {{indefblockeduser}} tag on User talk:V-Dash, although he was not indef-blocked. Good block. -Jéské ^{(Auld lang syne)} 23:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

i'll keep an eye on him too. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible conflict of interest

I was asked to take the issue to ANI instead of commenting on 3RR, so this is what I'm doing. Today there was a 3RR report against User:Jaakobou by User:Bless sins. In the discussion that ensued, an impartial administrator stated that two users were edit-warring (Jaakobou and Eleland), and action must be taken against either or both, because neither is completely innocent (or guilty).

There was also a small discussion which I consider fairly irrelevant, but whoever is reading this will probably want to read it as well. In any case, even though the 3RR case was disputed and wasn't a clear violation, an administrator (User:Tariqabjotu) decided to block the accused party (Jaakobou) for 84 hours (a very long block, although understandable because it's not his first). He also didn't say anything against Eleland, who was involved in the edit war, not even issuing a warning on his talk page, or anything of the sort.

The obvious initial problem is that an admin acted against only one user in an edit war, whose 3RR was disputed, and against the wishes of another admin. Normally, I wouldn't say anything, because who am I (a non-admin) to question this decision? However, the problem here is the User:Tariqabjotu is highly involved in articles related both to Israel and the Palestinians, and clearly is not an impartial admin. At the very least, he could have left a comment and asked another admin to do the block.

I am therefore appealing the decision and hope it is fairly reviewed by other administrators. I also invite uninvolved users to comment on what seems to me like a conflict of interest.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ynhockey omitted the fact that, as I said when I responded to the 3RR report, Jaakobou has been edit-warring on several articles over the past several days (such as House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Second Intifada, and Islam: What the West Needs to Know). After blocking Jaakobou, I took a look at Eleland's edit history and saw no such pattern of edit warring. One must note that the discussion on WP:AN3 only surrounded the edits of Jaakobou and Eleland on one article, House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I'm okay with objections to the block (although I firmly believe the block is justified), but accusations of conflict of interest are misplaced. Ynhockey's latest comment on WP:AN3 shows what obviously is him jumping to conclusions about how certain admins react in response to touchy subjects. Contrary, apparently, to what Ynhockey believes, I don't pigeonhole people as "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Palestinian" and make decisions based on those assumptions. So, I would prefer Ynhockey not do the same to me. Ynhockey does not know what I believe about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and as well, because my beliefs, especially on that subject, have no bearing on how I act within this project. His assertion that I am "highly involved in articles related both to Israel and the Palestinians" is an exaggeration and, more importantly, I am not involved in any conflict with Jaakobou (on any of the aforementioned articles or elsewhere). Decry the block if you must, but this idea that anyone touching Israel-related or Palestinian-related subjects is editing and acting from a biased standpoint is harmful to the welfare of our articles related to these subjects. It's no wonder many of our Middle Eastern articles have repeatedly been the subject of fierce edit wars. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, I did not imply that you were either pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, sorry if it came across this way - indeed the other two users I mentioned were clearly pro-Israeli and another clearly pro-Palestinian, that does not include you. I was merely commenting on the fact that you are highly involved in articles related to Israel and Arab countries (and by extension, Islam), and if 7 of your 15 top-edited articles are on these subjects, and you helped bring 2 to FA status, does not mean you are highly involved, then I don't know what does. I just thought that an involved admin, even if not in the specific article being disputed, should not pass judgement over articles they're close to. I probably would've disputed your decision even if you protected the page, for example, which would've been my suggestion/decision if I was an admin.

Secondly, it is wrong to say that Eleland does not have a history of edit-warring. Clear examples which come to mind are Saeb Erekat (for which he was reported for 3RR) and Battle of Jenin, although I'm sure I could dig up a dozen more if I actually went over his contributions.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a strong interest in the Middle East, but that still does not equal being highly involved in every Middle Eastern subject. Involvement in (for example, as you mention in your latest comment) Islam-related articles is still quite a leap away from being involved in articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, there is far more to Israel and Jerusalem than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Palestinians. Although those subjects are certainly related to the articles, you will see I stay away from articles more central to the conflict (such as, for example, Israeli-Palestinian conflict). As far as I am concerned, a conflict of interest is only of concern for a block or protection when there is a conflict with a specific editor or article. Neither is the case here. You have provided evidence that I edit articles related, in varying to degrees, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but you have provided no evidence that this has impeded my judgment, or made me biased, in blocking Jaakobou based on entirely different articles. If anything, the fact that I have been able to contribute substantially to Israel and Jerusalem and bring them to featured status is a testament to my ability to keep relatively neutral on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So, take out the conflict of interest claim and you leave what I believe should be the real purpose of the discussion – whether the block was fair, my interest in the Middle East notwithstanding.

Eleland's edit-warring on Saeb Erekat and Battle of Jenin dates back to (as recent as) December 4 and September 30, respectively. Jaakobou's edit-warring on Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Second Intifada, and Islam: What the West Needs to Know dates back to (as recent as) December 29, December 29, and December 29, respectively. I have no doubt that Eleland has edit warred on several articles during his time on Wikipedia, but the proximity of Jaakobou's edit-warring across multiple articles is the real issue. Jaakobou's response below further reinforces my point that there is an problem; he does not appear to understand that his edit-warring is unproductive, and claims he hasn't been edit-warring at all. -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleland's edit-warring on Palestinian right of return, on the other hand, is from December 30, and includes a violation of 3RR, so it is clear that he is edit warring across multiple articles, and that this behavior is current, not some ancient history. For the sake of even handedness, you should either cut short Jaakobu's block now, or block Eleland, whose behavior is identical. 213.239.207.90 (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like both users were edit-warring and since both have a history of making contentious edits on these sort of articles, both deserve similar treatment. However, I think jaakobou was acting in good faith, and not trying to push his POV and when I just looked over some of Eleland's latest contributions I saw at least one case of obvious POV-pushing that cannot be reasonably considered as good faith and loads of personal attacks. It seems that when we have 3 editors on one side of an issue and only 1 editor on the other side watching an article, the numbers "win" and the one gets blocked when really both deserve to be handled similarly, as just because someone didn't revert more than three times (and didn't violate the letter of 3RR), it doesn't justify his edit warring. Yonatan ^talk 23:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to post this on behalf of Jaakobou. Nick (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding block reasoning:

Following this [63] (static version) WP:3RR complaint by User:Bless_sins.

I admit of being involved in a high volume of edits on a number of articles and also admit to what could be construed as an edit war together with User:Eleland on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, inspection into my '"edit warring on a number of articles"'[64] reasoning stated by User:Tariqabjotu is superficial and incorrect as well:

1. Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian - My recent conflict with Tiamut, was by no means an edit war. He had a misunderstanding regarding the history of the region and we resolved it (I believe) quite quickly when I added the reference/source to my correction of the error-ed text ("Palestinim, Am Behivatsrut," by Kimmerling, Baruch, and Joel S. Migdal - Keter Publishing, ISBN: 965-07-0797-2).
2. Second Intifada - There was a multiple user conflict, which consisted of as many as 6-7 participants. After an edit war was already ensued between two very different versions - I've engaged in the article with a major attempt to resolve the disputes [65]. After resolving two of a the many disputes the discussions devolved into reverts once the issue of "intifada (uprising)" was a bit stuck but I have again reopened, a second discussion attempt on that issue [66] and it seemed to be moving quite reasonably. I don't believe that my attempts to resolve the disputes on said page should be portrayed as an edit war and stand against me on other article disputes.
3. Islam: What the West Needs to Know - In this article, for some reason, User:Bless_sins (same editor who opened the 3RR) claims that it is a BLP violation to re-write what a participant in the film stated and to support his BLP theory he removes the entire synopsis section. [67] I don't see my objection to this as an edit-war at all.

Considering this overview of the disputes and my efforts to resolve them, and considering that Palestinian-Israeli articles are filled with high emotions [68], incivility [69], pov accusations [70][71][72], and pov violations [73].

I believe, just as the first admin who inspected the 3RR notice believed [74], that if 3RR rules are to be applied to me regarding this dispute (where I have reverted 3 exactly times), then they should be applied evenly.

Lastly, if the descision is made to block anyone, and because I was given 84 hours. An inspection into my block log shows that apart from one 3RR mishap in July, my 3RR blocks were all rescinded. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Jaakobou's description of the facts is simply not accurate. The reference he added to his edits at Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian did not address the concerns I raised regarding his rather polemical insertions of material there. I have sinced retained the reference he added but removed the unsourced additions, while adding a source for an item he tagged as lacking in sources and doing a general copy edit of one of the sections in question. He has also been edit-warring at October 2000 events, changing a sentence sourced to two references to read as he pleases, despite my attempts to reason with him on the talk page. Tiamut 14:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that tariqabjotu made an error of judgment in his reason to block Jaakobou, but not Eleland. I don't believe there should have been any block for either since both have made exactly 3 reverts on this issue within the article and have started discussion on the talk page. I'd also like to suggest that many good editors go 3 reverts (not 4) on the Israeli-Palestinian articles without expecting to be blocked and it would be an interesting development if suddenly we are going to change the way blocks have been implemented thus far. Please, if there is a policy change on this, let us all know about it beforehand. That is my opinion anyhow, from reading and following these articles he was involved in of late. Eternalsleeper (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record Jaakobou made 4 reverts not 3. Eleland made less than 4 reverts (else I'd have reported him/her too).Bless sins (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I must not be making myself clear: Once again, I blocked Jaakobou for the sum of his edit warring, not for the edit warring on just House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please get the facts straight. -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC

It is my perception of the WP:3RR intention is that reverting an editor on different issues does not add up into a single issue, meaning that, each count as separate issues (imagine 5 editors arguing over a 5 issues). Therefore believe it was only 3 reverts and not 4. Also, Jaakobou explained the true nature of the "sum of his edit warring" and I honestly believe you have made a judgment error here blocking only one of the two, incorrectly declaring him as a rotten egg, while missing Eleland's activity on articles such as Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and also now where he helps User:Bless_sins avoid 3RR by reverting for him with the same dubious justification at the Islam movie article. Seeing that discussion were already on their way on talk, I think you should have only protected the article. The block will certainly not resolve the content dispute and everyone must wait 84 hours in anticipation. Eternalsleeper (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

YnHockey, I can understand when you say User:Tariqabjotu has edited, in the past, Israel/Arab related articles. You also agree, with tariq (and myself), that he/she is a completely neutral editor, neither 'pro-Palestinian' nor 'pro-Israeli'. In that case I don't see any conflict of interest. The fact that tariq is involved means he/she is very familiar with types edit warring that takes place in such articles, and how admins usually handle this. In that case tariqabjotu is a suitable admin for the job.Bless sins (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We should probably discuss the use of 3rr as a weapon in a content/POV push dispute. It certainly seems like some members of the community are keeping it as a weapon to beat their opponents with... Rather than blocking editors, who seem to be disengaging from the edit war, shouldn't the blocking admin have protected the pages in this case since discussion on talk pages had been occuring? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pages are generally protected when there are several different members in each of the edit-warring parties. In this case it appears to be a case of Jaakobou alone against 3 editors. Also, insisting that a user follow wikipedia rules is not a 'weapon to beat opponents with'. You are forgetting that the 'opponents' wouldn't be in this situation if they observed wikipedia policies like WP:3rr.Bless sins (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Happened

A number of users (Timeshifter, Tiamut, Eternalsleeper, and MathKnight) sought to add new content to the article Second Intifada which a number of the editors (Michael Safyan, Armon, Jaakobou, and Tewfik) deemed objectionable and in violation of WP:NPOV. Many of the editors sought to resolve the conflict on the article's talk page. It should be noted that Jaakobou made considerable efforts to resolve the editing conflict in this manner. However, some of the less scrupulous editors sought to push the new and biased content. Jaakobou followed proper protocol by reverting these controversial edits while the issue was being discussed on the talk page.

If anyone ought to be blocked, I think it should be those editors who ignored the ongoing discussion on the talk page and who sought to push their objectionable new content. Although those who support blocking Jaakobou attribute the block to a prior edit regarding wikilinks to House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the Second Intifada article, this conflict took place a long time ago and is not the actual motivation for the block.

In conclusion, I object to the blocking of Jaakobou on the grounds that:

1. Jaakobou followed proper protocol in reverting controversial edits and sought to resolve the conflict on the article's talk page.
2. Those seeking to block Jaakobou are equally, if not more, guilty of edit warring given that they disregarded ongoing discussion and instead sought to make their controversial edits.
3. The alleged reason for blocking Jaakobou (wikilinks to House demolitions) is quite different than the actual reasons for the block.
4. The alleged reason for blocking transpired a long time ago which, by any reasonable statute of limitations, ought to be disregarded.

Please see the Revision history of Second Intifada, the objectionable edit, the Second Intifada Talk Page. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify what are you calling the "alleged reason" versus the "actual reason" for the block. -- tariqabjotu 07:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By "alleged reason" I mean the stated reason which was used to justify the block to the administrative board. By "actual reason" I mean the reason why the block was sought in the first place -- that is, Jaakobou's reversion of the controversial edits. That the block was sought for this reason is evidenced by the fact that the stated reason involves a dispute which transpired a long time ago and by the fact that threats to block Jaakobou were first raised in the discussion of the controversial edits which Jaakobou reverted. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I misunderstood the reason for blocking. I thought it was a 3RR violation of Second Intifada regarding wikilinks to the House demolitions article rather than a 3RR violation of the House demolitions article, itself. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou is a hugely problematical editor with almost no understanding of the policy of the encyclopedia or scholarship - or indeed the English language. His bluster, ownership of articles (and TalkPages) is totally inimicable to the project. He has consistently escaped censure for rampant abuses - and we can again see the personalised attacks that have allowed him to get away with it for so long. The admin in this case has looked at the evidence and (as best as I'm aware) applied a reasonable sanction for the breaches alleged, likely unaware of what went before. Having discovered the blow-back he may feel severely bitten, but it is to be hoped that other admins will not be as spineless as those who've become aware of this situation before, and failed to do anything about it. 3RR is almost the least of the problems. PR^talk 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:FCYTravis

This user is making useless edits to bypass redirects in violation of Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. When I explain this, he calls me "an insensate policy wonk". What should be done? --NE2 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Diffs or articles concerned? Avruchtalk 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[ec]FCYTravis (talk · contribs) is making perfectly valid points on your talk page. I don't see the issue with changing a piped link that heads to a redirect into a piped link that goes directly to the target article. This is a completely pointless revert and an edit war worth WP:LAME if it continues. Please find a way to solve this dispute that needs no admin intervention... — Scientizzle 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that they are useless edits, and should not be encouraged. They also increase page size. --NE2 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's more useless to edit war and argue over harmless, if useless, edits. — Scientizzle 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If it stops the useless edits, it might be worth it. --NE2 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Edit warring is by defenition more harmfull then a harmless edit. The only reason WP:REDIR states not to change links is to prevent confusion over future articles that may be created in the context of that link. The edits you are warring over do not fall under that reason, as these redirects only apply to spelling of a link, not it's meaning. — Edokter • Talk • 22:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moldopodo (talk · contribs) & Ungurul (talk · contribs)

[edit] Moldopodo complains about Ungurul

User:Ungurul, before vandalising the article Balti steppe, has never said anything on the relevant talk page. Further, this user has simply replaced every word "steppe" with "depression" and also added diacritics signs everywhere. None of these edits were justified. For none of these edits has user Ungurul tried to reach a consensus in advance. --Moldopodo (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

User:Ungurul, also present on German speaking Wikipedia (according to me, as uses exact same insults and numerous personal attacks)de:User:Cultura, de:User:Forta - ref. [75], [76], on French speaking Wikipedia fr:User:William Pedros ref. [77], [78], [79], [80], on Romanian speaking Wikipedia ro:User: 125.245.199.2 (was blocked for obsceneities written in Romanian) ref.[81], [82]. User Ungarul was asked to stop personally attacking me under the above mentioned user names on all Wikipedias, to stop insult/personally attack me and vandalise disussion pages by repeatedly deleting sections containing discussion and research of consensus on the proper city name in the cocnerend language, namely on French Wikipedia).--Moldopodo (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Further explication of User:uNgarul's actions may be also found at my talk page, and namely at its edits history (the same applies for other language version Wikipedias). thank you for your time.--Moldopodo (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

[edit] Ungurul complains about Moldopodo

Can one look about the behaviour of this user? He was blocked for a week, now is again trolling and being disruptive. I mean this guy is not accepting official name of cities and he's been blocked in others wikipedia as well. See French wikipedia for example. Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Utilisateur:Moldopodo --Ungurul (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Ungurul (talk · contribs) has recently been blocked for harrasing Moldopodo (talk · contribs). These two just can't get along... — Scientizzle 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not harrasing him, I just asked him on his talk page something. One can see my edit there. A very innocent question. Ungurul (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For better or worse, Wikipedia projects are completely autonomous, at least in regards to user conduct, so whatever actions Moldopodo has undertaken on other projects should not be taken into account here. Whether he accepts official names or not is a personal matter. What should matter here is his conduct in seeking or following consensus and generally abiding by Wikipedia guidelines. I agree that Moldopodo has not been the ideal editor in those respects, but to be fair, you have also breached various policies, and Moldopodo's actions should be seen in the light of these mitigating circumstances. TSO1D (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he's being very disruptive. I see that others from other Wikipedia also dealt with him properly. By blocking him. Ungurul (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I blocked him once, and I'm not going to do it again on your say so. You can both get along, or you can both be blocked. You are being as bad as each other. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, because I simply revert his POV pushing and I respected the rules. He didn't accepted even the consensus on talk page. See that he's reverting. Ungurul (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See his disruptive trolling on Talk:Bălţi 20:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly contest the statement that I did not look for consensus. Please check relevant talk pages on any language on Balti, Balti steppe, everywhere I engage in the research of consensus and discussion, everywhere I always source my edits, and may be I am too strict by requesting the same from others. Also, User:TSO1D please provide a diff for your statements and namely where I personally attack User:Ungurul. To avoid repetetive attacks from user Ungurul, please find below a copy of my unblock request, where all is explained with diffs: Wikipedia 3RR says: reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. (For other, less obvious forms of vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents); In the present case, User Ungurul (just as User Dc76) never tried to reach consensus or to prove whatsoever, they just simply pushed through their unjustified personal opinion, without any single reference to a verifiable source, nor any other type of explication (talk page is empty), which is moreover, their personal invention called 'Balti depression'. How can you reach any consensus or any discussion if the person is not writing anything on the talk page. The only thing Dc76 wrote on the talk page (Balti steppe does not exist, that's why it will br moved to Balti depression). Please, have a look at just some randomly googled and selected links I have provided on the Balti steppe talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balti_steppe), check also references and link on the last version of Balti steppe article itself, as edited by myself last time (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balti_steppe&oldid=179776522). User Ungurul. nor User Dc76 had not even tried to present any proof on the talk page. That's why it is mere vandalism and that's why the 3RR rule should not apply to me in this case. User Ungurul has edited much more than myself and violated 3RR much more times. Even if you consider my edits as "reverts", please check attentively, as I was continuing to write portions of the article this morning, user Ungurul kept deleting it and renaming it in the same time. These were not proper reverts from my side as I was continuously adding new text, pictures, links, etc... Also, Balti steppe is a widely known and studied gegraphic phenomenon, it is an established name for grassland type in Moldova. To the contrary Balti depression simply does not exist and the first time I saw this was from User Dc76. I also understad why no justification or attempt to find consensus was found on the Balti steppe talk page. It simply because there is nothing to prove it (google 'balti depression' and you will find 0 results pertaining to the topic). Not only the term is inexistent, the geographic phenomenon of Balti depression is inexistent as well. Look now at Balti steppe talk page, where I provided a random selection of available on internet references to Balti steppe, check also references on the Balti steppe article itself(http://www.biotica-moldova.org/ECO-NET/part6-2-2.htm) and and Britannica Encyclopedia (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9012051/Balti), but also: Scientific Ph. D. Research dated 2006 on Fertility of Chernozem in Balti Steppe (Beltskaya Steppe/Бельцкая степь in Russian)(http://www.cnaa.acad.md/files/theses/2006/5617/stanislav_stadnic_abstract_ru.pdf), press article in the major Moldavian newspaper (http://www.nm.md/daily/article/2003/06/03/0000.html), travel company site(http://www.spectrumtravel.md/eng/country.php?c=3&cid=13), Draft Assessment Report for establishing a national environment and natural resource information network compatible with the UNEP/GRID (http://enrin.grida.no/htmls/moldova/md_assm.htm), Beltsy Steppe(http://www.justmaps.org/flags/europe/moldova.asp), Belcy Steppe in Columbia Encyclopedia 2007 sixth edition, link to European Commission mentioning Balti Steppe (http://www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_co-operation/environment/nature_and_biological_diversity/ecological_networks/the_emerald_network/Pilot_project_Moldova.asp), National Council for Accreditation and Attestation www.cnaa.acad.md (http://www.cnaa.acad.md/en/thesis/5617/), Ministry of Environment and Territorial Arrangement (http://enrin.grida.no/biodiv/biodiv/national/moldova/Biodiv.htm) etc. etc... Balti steppe article is properly sourced. Have you found any source for Balti depression? This is why the 3RR should not apply to me, or rather apply, but with its exception. User Ungurul clearly violated the 3RR and this more than once, bringing all vandalism to the article. Please tell me why did you not unblock me taking in consideration the disruptive vandalsising editing undertaken by User:Ungurul, as suggested initially by User:Dc76, and why if you intend to keep me blocked, why was I blocked for one week and User:Ungurul for 24 hours. I would also like to check users for socket pupetting User:Bonaparte, User:Ungurul (uses exact same agressive style, does not listen to arguments and does not provide any sources, edits exclusively on Romania and Moldavia related topics), Utilisateur:William_Pedros (on French speaking Wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:William_Pedros) (exact same style, calling me right off "vandal"), User: 89.185.33.40 (exact same editing style, calling my sourced edits "vandalism") and User:Dc76 (initiator of the page move); also User: 89.185.33.40 used exact same language as Dc76: "pushing POV, bordering vandalism, and edited only on Romania and Moldova related articles, namely to make sure that Dc76's edits or ideas are brought back. Thank you very much in advance for your answer and most importantly: "Happy Christmas!" (even if you do not celebrate it today)--Moldopodo (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

There is no way I'm reading that whole thing. Can you just discuss it without edit-warring or making personal attacks? Is that really so much to ask? Avruchtalk 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you can see all how disruptive he is. Imagine how he destroyed all the articles with huge talk pages like this one. Yet, he said he never attacked me or he was never beeen disruptive. This guy is a troll, and a vandal. No wonder he was blocked so many times. Ungurul (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, there was no single personal attack from my side regarding User:Ungurul, however, there were plenty from his side in my regard, and the last one just here[83]. Please, do take some time and have a look through my arguments and presented diffs. --Moldopodo (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Everyone can see, now you'll be blocked for good. People are tired of you and your vandalisme and trolling. --Ungurul (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

and User:Ungurul continues:[84], aslo check how User:Ungurul renamed this whole section "Banning user Moldopodo"--Moldopodo (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Don't worry, you're just a vandal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Moldopodo

• 13:22, 23 December 2007 FisherQueen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring)
• 21:10, 26 November 2007 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Talk | contribs) unblocked Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) ‎ (on the proviso that he not go edit-warring again, espcially on romanian-related articles)
• 21:03, 25 November 2007 AGK (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (disruptive editing: edit warring in order to push a particular opinion, anti-consensus edits despite repeated warnings, failure to heed cautions, et cetera)
• 20:42, 19 November 2007 Nat (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring)

[edit] Time to block both?

New section header so this doesn't get lost in the flurry of polemics above. I propose that these two editors are both acting disruptive. If each continues to rail against the other here (and in other forums, such at article talk pages and admin talk pages fishing for blocks) they would best serve the project by losing editing privelages. You two have a content dispute, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is the proper forum. — Scientizzle 21:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just what I was thinking when reviewing this mess of a thread. I'd support a block of both for mutual disruptive unpleasantness and wastage of WP:ANI bytes. Sandstein (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I'd support a double block; neither of them seems able or willing to just discuss their disagreement like reasonable adults, and I'm tired of them looking to us to referee this lame edit-war. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I accept to be blocked for one month if Moldo is blocked also. Anyway, I was the good guy here, because I didn't accept to change official names and I was not disruptive and I didn't fill huge talk pages like he did. One can check. Ungurul (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And also please remark that everything was OK until he get unblocked. He was blocked for a week last time. Ungurul (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You sound like a child. Shut up. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a child. But he is not. Ungurul (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support--Hu12 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked I've blocked them both for 14 days. When the blocks expire, anything more disruptive than good-faith dispute resolution, if necessary, won't be tolerated. — Scientizzle 21:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Scientizzle. Moldopodo and Ungurul, when your blocks expire you're welcome to contribute to the peaceful resolution of this content dispute at Talk:Bălţi steppe. Euryalus (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Account of Moldopodo unblocked. You failed to look into user contribution history. For last 7 days I see no disruption of wikipedia editing. This is an outrageous abuse of admin privileges. `'Míkka>t 05:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

An "outrageous abuse of admin privileges"? I fully disagree. I won't revert your solitary sysop undo of a supported (see above) admin action without discussion. But I'm nonplussed. These two, continually bickering over many, many pages, was considered disruptive by several editors. — Scientizzle 07:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There has be no discussion or support for an unblock, nor has an attempt been made to contanct the blocking admin prior to it. Wheel warring is considered improper behavior for an administrator.--Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about this unilateral unblock, which I think is in very bad form, and about your comment, which I think is unbecoming an administrator. I fail to see what relevance a previous lack of disruption by Moldopoldo has in this affair. Also, a statement such as "outrageous abuse of admin privileges" is way out of line considering the support expressed for this action above. Mikkalai, I recommend that you retract that statement and reinstate the block of Moldopoldo. Sandstein (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend y'all stop wikilawyering upon me and address the issue: for the last week there was no any disruption of article ediing from the side of Moldopodo. Your refusal to admit an error confirms my opinion about certain attitude about way too trigger-happy administratitis. The fact taht he person is kinda inconvenient does not mean taht you have to hit in on head after the first cry wolf wthout looking into the essence. If you disagee with me please provide example of the disruption and we shall talk. It is especially outrageous that an attempt to involve more people to resolve a conflict between the two by posting in this page was an argument in favor of block instead of help. What is wrong with you people? Did they spoil your holiday supper or what? <sadly shaking the head> `'Míkka>t 08:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The expression "I fail to see what relevance a previous lack of disruption by Moldopoldo has in this affair" makes me wonder: who of us is crazy? Or wikilawyers already concocted a policy that you may ban a person for last year snow? `'Míkka>t 08:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One important note: There was no disruption from Moldopodo for a week at least partially because he was blocked for the week of December 23-December 30. I'm willing to concede that maybe Ungurul (talk · contribs) was a bigger problem in this case, but Moldopodo not being disruptive on articles during his or her week-long block for edit warring is hardly a strong argument for an unblock. I'm a reasonable guy and will listen to reasoned arguments, and had this been brought up to me directly I may have been convinced to unblock the account myself. — Scientizzle 17:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Any reasonable editor can see thusfar that this discussion as has the previous ones, contradicts an unblock. and by no means could this discussion be consrude or intrpereted as a consensus for an unblock. More troubling is your confrontational attitude, and rejection of community input and its consensus process.--Hu12 (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself a reasonable editor and I have to say I was uncomfortable about the block of Moldopodo. What exactly (with diffs please) did he do wrong? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this unblock, because whereas I have often disagreed in the past with user Moldopodo, and he always describes me as his nemesis, I think that in this case he did not really do anything severe enough to deserve a two week ban (or any ban for that matter). However since both he and Ungurul were blocked simultaneusly for their mutual conflict, I think that since Moldopodo has been unblocked, Ungurul's block should also be reviewed and shortened if not completely set aside. TSO1D (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ungurul was persistently teasing and harassing moldopodo and I am strongly against the unblock. On the contrary, Moldopodo was discussing unguru's ridiculous edits mixed with lies. This very thread was started with false accusation by ungurul. Super-admins decided to play annoyed unstead of looking into the matter. `'Míkka>t 19:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. No one (including myself) looked into the matter deeply enough. I am strongly opposed to unblocking Ungural who was clearly only trying to get Moldopodo blocked; clearly disruptive in my book. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that ungurul's actions were more severe and that he should not be immediatly unblocked. However, since both users were banned for engaging in a disruptive conflict more than anything specific, it seems hardly fair to pardon one of the users and let the other serve the full block. So I reduced Ungurul's block to three days. If any of them starts edit warring or engaging in personal attacks, the original block should be reinstated. Actually it might be wise to do a Checkuser on Ungurul, he could be a sock of Bonnie and then the result would be clear. My actions were based on the assumption that he was a new user. TSO1D (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

←A few points, some I've previously stated above:

• Ungurul (talk · contribs) was clearly disruptive and a block to this account appears to be well-supported, even if it has been shortened.
  • Any sockpuppet suspicions should have been brought up much earlier and much clearer. If this is possibly a banned user causing trouble again, that would have been nice to know yesterday.
• Moldopodo (talk · contribs) was sucked into this by the frenetic accusations of Ungurul, and I'm willing to concede that Moldopodo appears was less deserving of a block (of any length) than Ungurul. Moldopodo's statements and actions in this last round were light-years more appropriate than Ungurul.
  • That said, the statement that Moldopodo hadn't caused any disruptions over the last week is misinformative, as Moldopodo was blocked for a week on December 23 and couldn't cause any disruption during that time.
• I am sufficiently ignorant of the details of Eastern European geography that I am ill-equipped to analyze all of the "factual" statements thrown around in this and other forums. The content disagreements between these users that has previously resulted in numerous edit wars and blocks for both. The repeated characterization of each others' edits as vandalism and trolling had the distinct feel of an overly heated content dispute, one in which neither party was willing to tone down the attitudes or rhetoric.
• Moldopodo has starred in previous ANI threads: edit war with Dc76 (talk · contribs)[85]; complaints about TSO1D (talk · contribs)[86]; complaining about admin Nat (talk · contribs) as well as TSO1D[87]; more TSO1D v. Moldopodo[88]; and more here and here and here and the most recent iteration. And there have been at least suspicions of abusive puppetry by Moldopodo, too. In any case, I did see much of this prior to my enacted block (despite claims otherwise): Moldopodo has displayed some tendencies of the classic tendentious editor, focuses all efforts on a particularly tendentious arena, and has certainly conflicted with other tendentious types. This sort of resume, admittedly, often makes other uninvolved editors (myself included) less patient with drama-producing (or alleged drama-producing) edit warriors in more esoteric fields. This is futher compounded by Moldopodo's communication style that makes it difficult to wade through his/her side of the various issues. All of this combined quickly sapped my patience, I admit.
• Finally, I object to a few things specific to mikkalai (talk · contribs):
  • My block summary was not a "false reason" as you claimed in your unblock summary (though I should have selected "disruptive" over "edit warring") and the lack of disruption in the prior week is a sham of a defense (vis-à-vis Moldopodo’s week-long block during said period).
  • Making statements like "User ungurul is an ignorant arrogant person and suspected sockpuppet" does nothing to defuse the situation (without evidence or elaboration on the sock allegation) and can appear to be evidence of a bias on your part, deserved or not.
  • Characterizing my action as "an outrageous abuse of admin privileges" is more than a touch hyperbolic.
  • Had you brought any of this up on my talk page or via email before unblocking I would have listened carefully; I am very comfortable admiting and resolving any mistake I may make. I hope you and other editors will not hesitate, if necessary, in the future, to contact me prior to any unilateral action opposing or undoing my adminstrative activites.

— Scientizzle 22:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• All this smoke and mirror does not address the one and only basic question: which exactly disruption happened during the last week that warranted a very long block. BTW a nice move to turn tables and turn discussion into how bad I am. I describe the action in question as blatant abuse of admin privileges and you did nothing to change my opinion. And I will act exactly the same way when I see the one next time, and you may sue me. I may give a slack to a childish anon vandal and warn him 3 times before blocking, but we are talking about inappropriate acions of admins here. I could have understood that you alone misjudged in a hurry, but when I saw several of you banding up into a lynch mob chanting: "I don't want to read all this bullshit he wrote, just hang him high block him deep and done with it!", it really ticked me off. `'Míkka>t 23:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And your stubborn attitude is glossing over that I have admitted to some mistakes and also explained some of the mindset in which I worked. A good-faith mistake is not the same as abuse. There's no smoke and mirrors here. I am in no way describing way in which you are "bad", I just noted a couple of specific things about your response that could have been done differently (better, in my opinion) to reduce drama, namely discussing directly with me your opinions. I see nothing more that needs to be done here (all blocks are set to everyone's satisfaction?), but I'll welcome any further comments on my own talk page. — Scientizzle 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I admit that I was not reading very carefully your preceding detailed response and your admission of mistake was lost from me. For that I apologize. I have already explained that were you alone, I would not make any fuss of it. The real problem is how you managed to get an unanimous support in this page. I understand that one person can make a mistake sometimes. But really worrisome was that several people here happily displayed a mob attitude without minimal inspection. It took me only 3 seconds do realize that moldopodo cound not have possibly done something bad during last week. And it does not really matter whether he was blocked or was busy boinking his girlfriend. I may only conclude that the miltuperson decision was made based on a hearsay and vague memories taht yes this guy was nuisance in the past, let's nuke him now. And this is way not the first time I see this attitude. I don't care what opinion you will have about me after this, as long as you and other who reads this be less jumpy to conclusions next time. `'Míkka>t 01:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way folks, has anybody checked if Ungurul isn't just another Bonaparte sock? Bonaparte has been after Moldopodo for a while, and the style fits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nrswanson article hijack attempts

Nrswanson (talk · contribs) and 2-day-old likely socks Ringnpassagio (talk · contribs) and Voicequeen (talk · contribs) are attempting to replace the established article Voice type with tne Nrswanson-written Voice classification. (I have no opinion on which version is right or wrong; however, Nrswanson has been asked to contribute to the existing articles rather than attempting end-runs around WP:CONSENSUS.)

Nrswanson establishes a consensus with the two new(/sock?) accounts to delete Voice type ("and do not merge")[89] in favor of the Nrswanson-written Voice classification. Ringnpassagio (in this editor's 5th & 6th ever edits) promptly deletes comments from Talk:Voice type,[90] copy/pasting to Talk:Voice classification (a discussion page that prior had only comments from Nrswanson and puppets.[91])

A sock puppetry report has been filed here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrswanson

I'm bringing this to ANI because this user is disrupting quite quickly. Nrswanson has already been rebuked for a similar stunt in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falsetto, yet shows no interest in changing, continuing to edit war by restoring his Falsetto register fork of the Falsetto article [92] [93] (with help from his sock[94]).

I should cite WP:OWN in here somewhere. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's amazing. I note diff over a span of edits on 5 Dec, Nrswanson builds UP the article, adding his version, then methodically strips away all the old stuff, making it look like good faith edits, but by the end, it's all his. Ironically, he slaps an 'unicted' template at the top. Then he protects it via edit warring, sets up a redirect... what a mess. It should be reverted to the 1 Dec version, befoe he took it over. It's defintiely WP:OWNed by him. That level of action, I'd support a block, as an editor who finds the sneaky methods used to be disturbing. Finally, The actual content cahnges are problematic, because he takes out examples, and explanations, assigns gender roles without citation (it is true that only men are allowed to be basses, or are men basses by biology, not women?) and so on. His whole rewrite smacks of game-playing, and should be disallowed. ThuranX (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for full page protection on Falsetto register (which should be a redirect to Falsetto, per the AFD). I'm not sure the WP:RFPP staff get what's going on, so I'm not confident this page will be protected. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I fixed the forking of voice classification and redirected to voice type, I will review the rest for OR and other issues, I don't know how current Miller's The Structure Of Singing might be in terms of current mainstream thought, so anybody who knows please let me know on my Talk page, as that would be my major source for a review of his contributions. I've watchlisted Vocal resonation, which superficially seems OK but is woefully think on citations for the amount of text. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Just voicing full support for Guy's reversion ofthe article to its' pre-Nrswanson state. ThuranX (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just reverted Nrswanson's reversion on Falsetto which discarded the merge decided in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falsetto. (Nrswanson gives the same reason he gave reverting Falsetto register: "premature merge". Can we block this editor yet?)

I don't know what to make of this, but Nrswanson is applauded by Moreschi (talk · contribs) [95], and defended faithfully by Voceditenore (talk · contribs) (WP:SPP/Nrswanson [96], [97]; Talk:Falsetto[98]) Both of these editors are regulars in Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera, seem wiki-familiar with Nrswanson, and have a history of fixing Nrswanson's poor edits (such as creating all-caps titled articles). I don't know if Nrswanson's edits are somehow imposing a "WikiProject Opera" bias upon these articles, but there is no evidence of puppetry involving these supportive editors. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Look, gentlemen. This fellow's made very fine edits to countertenor and whistle register in particular, and we shouldn't really throw that away on the basis of unverified allegations. I think he knows what he's doing. I also take exception to being accused by implication of spreading such a ludicrous notion as "WikiProject Opera bias" and meatpuppetry. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 01:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of diffs here to verify "allegations", and your comment on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrswanson implies you may have read the thing. I don't see how you can defend this behavior. Albert Einstein would get kicked off Wikipedia for this kind of editing. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked to see Morschi supporting off-wiki collusion and meatpuppetry. Whether you percieve it as 'good' or 'bad' forthe project, it's not how things are supposed to work. Off wiki cooperation and plannign happens, can't be stopped, probably shouldn't be, and often helps the project. However, when it's all about a conspiracy to force OWN and POV on the WP, that's a problem, and needs our attention. ThuranX (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LHC link addition

I've brought this here for another admin to review the problem, as I think there is potential for conflict of interest as I work at CERN. User:76.89.246.73 is adding what I believe to be original research to Large Hadron Collider. The editor was given uw-spam1 by User:Closedmouth, then uw-spam4 by myself. He left a message on the talk page to which I responded here, and has since re-added the links and Closedmouth as reverted again. Could someone else review the problem and take any actions required, to avoid any accusations of impropriety on my part. Thanks. ^Khukri 11:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK now it's getting serious please see this ^Khukri 11:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor claims to be David Hochman, "a journalist from the new york times". The IP address appears to resolve to New York, but I find it improbable that a journalist from a publication such as the NYT would edit Wikipedia in this manner (see also the IP editor's comments at User talk:76.89.246.73). It appears more likely that the IP editor is acting on behalf of http://www.lhcdefense.org, links to which site he has been repeatedly trying to add to the article. If no further activity of this sort occurs, no administrative action would seem to be necessary, otherwise a block for spamming and harrassment might be appropriate. In addition, someone who manages to find Mr Hochman's e-mail address (I didn't) might want to inform him about the weird edits someone has made in his name here. Sandstein (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I have nothing to hide with respect to my previous edits, or my work, the threat of being outted leaves me feeling quite uncomfortable. OK it's most probably a hoax, as I can't imagine such a well respected journalist leaving so many grammatical errors, but nonetheless I do take it quite personally. ^Khukri 12:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cyric the whatever, back as anons - harassment (Resolved)

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

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

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

Continues to revert closed AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlango
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Design Panel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Colony ARK

I suggest they be protected for a while.

see also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#User:Cyric the All - harassment

--Jack Merridew 13:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

76.195.7.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), too on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Colony ARK; this is likely coming from some off-wiki forum. I hear-tell this commonly occurs on the likes of 4chan. --Jack Merridew 14:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And 219.77.82.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) on the ARK Afd. --Jack Merridew 14:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And 79.68.178.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) on the Zlango Afd. --Jack Merridew 14:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note I've indefinately fully protected the three afd's listed since they are only historical records there isnt any need for further edits anyway. Gnangarra 15:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum:

• 66.25.95.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) now reverting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunted Hero (Ghost Whisperer episode) as above. --Jack Merridew 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jim62sch (resolved)

[edit] Fastnaturedude threatened

Please look at User:Fastnaturedude (if it hasn't been reverted yet). An anon has threatened this user. The user had contacted me personally, but I'm not sure exactly how to deal with this, and I'm not available to edit because of real life plans. Anyone care to investigate further and follow through? Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The relevant diff is this one, to make it easier for everyone. WHOIS shows the IP is registered to comcast in Michigan, so probably static. Would probably be easy enough to report to the appropriate police department if anyone cares to. While normally these things are shrugged off, Fastnaturedude has identified himself as a Michigan resident, so there's a good chance this might have actually come from someone who knows him. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the user saw the threat (as evident from this), I'd say if the user wanted authorities contacted, s/he would have done so. I don't really think anybody else needs to do anything, except give the IP a block. A look at the contributions from it show that whoever has been using it since the 13th of December isn't being constructive, at all. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Scuse me, but why is it this guy makes a deaththreat and isn't blocked?Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure is a good question. For quick and easy blocking (by whatever admin gets here first), here are the links: 69.246.79.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP (for anonymous use only) for one year. I've never dealt with a death threat block before so if another admin with more experience in these matters cares to vary that, I'd have no complaints but would appreciate a note so I can learn from the experience. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comcast IPs are generally dynamic so I shortened it to a month. It should have a new owner by then. Mr.Z-man 04:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know -- if you're happy, I'm happy. A month it is. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit perplexed by this. The same IPs have edited Fastnaturedude's user page at another wiki and he has not complained there. In fact, there's this edit tying the user to the IP. Color me confused. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this edit specifically states that 69.246.79.189 is one of Kitsune's IPs, which is later confirmed by Kitsune/Fastnaturedude while logged in, here. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment by User:Elonka (apparently resolved)

I, PHG, am placing this request following a suggestion by Admin and Bureaucrat User:Wknight94 [99]. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for 4 years, have contributed hundreds of new articles, as well as created 7 FAs. I have been however in a rather intense relationship with User:Elonka for a few months now, since I started an article on the Franco-Mongol alliance back in August 2007. A great subject, which is very much in sync with my general interest for cultural interaction thoughout history (see also FAs I created, such as Boshin War, Hasekura Tsunenaga, Indo-Greeks, Imperial Japanese Navy, History of Buddhism etc...).

The subject of Franco-Mongol relations seems to be contentious with some users however, and I soon entered into heated discussions with Elonka whether these was actually an alliance or not and other details. She first tried to have the article renamed, but failed (here). Despite the quantity of authors who specifically described this alliance (here), she kept arguing that the view was "fringe" and did not deserve balanced representation with the alternative view ("only attempts at an alliance"...). She then tried quite violently to discredit me through the Administrator notice board, but again failed (here), thanks to several users who spoke up for me. I responded by pointing out her behaviour (here), without asking for punitive action. Actually her agressiveness in relation to this article generated many of the Opposes in her recent nomination as Admin (here). She still spends a huge amount of time leaving enormous diatribes against me on various Talk Pages and User Pages (A recent example). Mediation was started but came to a halt a the mediator Tariqabjotu felt that "further discussion was improbable of producing result." (here).

Now, Elonka, newly elected as an Admin, continues trying to raise and inflate any issue she can find to threaten me with the worst. From my Talk Page: "Seriously, PHG, this is highly disruptive, you need to stop this tendentious behavior. When there is a clear consensus of other editors who want a certain course of action, you need to respect that. If you do not respect that, then you risk being blocked entirely from Wikipedia." (Elonka 19:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC) [100]), "Even if you were banned from Wikipedia today, it would take days, if not weeks of effort to cleanup all this "alliance" stuff that you've been pouring into multiple articles on Wikipedia. You have to stop." (Elonka 06:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC) [101]).

I would like to require a warning and reprimand against Elonka for harassing a well-meaning and prolific contributor. Please help find a way to stop the agressiveness. I am just here to share knowledge and contribute fascinating, referenced, stuff about ancient history and cultural interaction. Best regards to all and Long Live Wikipedia. PHG (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters in regards to this incident(as they only have a few more technical features available to them than a sysop), but User:Wknight94 is an admin but not a bureaucrat. Dureo (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has now been informed of this thread's existence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I note that Elonka's comments about POV-forking, as per the last but one para, appear to be justified and supported with links / diffs. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• I disagree. The allegations of pov forking are based on the incorrect assumption that one position is supported by an academic majority while the other is not. I still think that Elonka should discontinue any involvement with this topic at least for a little a while.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't turn this into a redux of the last 50 page AN/I report concerning these editors. Thanks. Avruchtalk 14:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tenkasei Ryo (resolved)

• Tenkasei Ryo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This user states he is 13 years old and appears to be Italian with limited command of English (though his vocabulary seems more extensive in the specific area of invective). For some reason I can't really fathom he seems to have picked on Ryulong, launching a series of diatribes, vandalism and attacks from this account and a number of IPs. User:the_undertow blocked the user, rightly IMO. It seems to me that, whether or not the attacks are taken as meaningful or not (and frankly calling someone a pedophile will warrant a lengthy stay in the sin bin, for my money), in my judgement the individual is simply too immature and too confused to make anything like a productive editor at this stage. I have tried to explain this, but others may wish to pitch in. As unblock reasons go, "THIS USER DON'T LIKE TO BE BLOCKED" does not get into my top ten. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I support the block and Guy's explanation of the block. This does not appear to be a productive editor by any means. However, the undertow did not handle the situation in a sufficiently professional manner. It would have been helpful if the block summary had contained a reason for the block, and block notices such as this one and protection summaries such as this one just leave me scratching my head. Sandstein (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it was informal language targeted at the user's level. Whether it was a hit or a miss is open to debate. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This user originally showed up at one of the articles I've been working on by putting in a lot of mainly incorrect information under 79.21.76.123 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) where his first edit was to put in the incorrect information and attack me. He came back to the article multiple times, undoing whatver attempts I made to try and improve the article, by actually finding a reference that refuted what he had been putting in and {{reflist}}. The full list of IPs used can be found here. He had registered as Ryurenjaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and performed similar edits, until I attempted today to try and see if he would listen to reason. Instead, he remained stubborn, vandalized my talk page, the talk page of the article, and his own talk page. I had asked him to act like an adult under one of his IP editing sprees, to which he added this epithet, called me a drunkard in Italian, something I don't know the proper translation for, and generally was a pain in the ass when I was trying to discuss things with him. His actions led me to semiprotect my talk page as I was getting tired of having to rollback his attacks every minute during the New Years celebrations with my family. The last thing he did was blank the article talk. This user is on an Italian ISP that appears to give him a lot of leeway in coming back as he pleases. I would have blocked this user myself, but I was trying to see if he would stop acting like a petulant child. I was wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 12:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that this guys is, indeed, teh suck. — Coren ^(talk) 12:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. He's teh suck. the_undertow was on top of his game on this one. Lara❤Love 16:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unblock(pardon) user:71.149.161.91

Yes, can I have a admin to pardon user:71.149.161.91 on the act of making "death threats". The act of "threats" was caused my idotic moron friend that came over to my house to "house sit" while I was shopping at Best Buy . I didnt know he was going to mess with my pc okay. I told to keep "watch" of the house. Okay. I didnt place a "death threat" to the user:baseball bugs. Okay, that was not me. I am applogizing on his behalf. I didnt know he was on the computer at the time okay. I know he screws around wikipedia, I told him to stop yesterday, and he is not my friend anymore okay. I am sorry for this okay. Administrators of Wikipedia I say to you reading this I'm sorry for this that has occured. I'm sorry for the user that was "threaten". It not a funny, nor was it joke. My friend was just being a idoitic drunken fool that was listening to music and typing bull crap on wikipedia article talk pages. Again I'm sorry to those that were affected by this maater. If you want to talk to me you can do so on my user talk page . Thank you for you time.75.8.80.102 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a very simple way for you to solve this: get an account. _TheIslander 15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that I was away from the computer at the time. I didnt know about this until I saw the admin message.Eldorado91 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"It wasn't really me it was my friend/neighbor/brother/coworker/dog" is one of the oldest of excuses used and is almost invariably false. Edward321 (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard it before too. Both the above user [102] and the IP address in question [103] are now blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I didnt do it there I said it okay. I'm sorry for this "incident". Can I be forgiven. Can we have a peacful solution to this matter. If this is solved , this will never happend again.I guarantee it.And also can Baseball Bugs stop saying that I have sockpuppets I dont even know what he is talking about , I never ever created one before. Nor have I have done okay. Stop making that accustation that I have a sockpupper Bugs. My demands to this ordeal to end peacefully are all follows

1. A pardon on the blocked users names 2. Accepted applogy from Baseball Bugs and the other person that blocked the ip 3. I shall make sure this never happens again, it was just a one time thing , my idoitic friend did okay. So Baseball Bugs, and the other guy that blacklisted me I am sorry what has occured ,and I am waiting for someone to accpet this applogogy that have I have stated. This was a mistake. I am sorry for my friend caused on the Bhutto page my friend did okay. I wasnt there, he messing around on there to. I am sorry for that to. I was aware of that until I read the talk page. I am tired of everyone "pointing fingers" at me. Okay, I'm sorry there okay. We are only humans, we all make mistakes. My friend didnt was not serious about the "threats". Okay. So I am sorry for that.75.13.16.43 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's supplied us with a couple more IP addresses that need to be blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Baseball bugs, before you ban me right here. Let me say to you man to man. I am giving to an appology my idoit boy friend is to stupid to do. "I'm sorry", Okay there. Can you accept. I am not a sockpuppet I dont even know what your talking about man. Eldorado91 is my personal user name dude. I am sorry for this "incident". 75.13.16.43 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what User:Edward321 said above; you've had a history of making personal attacks before... Who's to say that it wasn't you in the first place? You've said "it wasn't me" - but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it was you. Please just accept the admins decision to block your account. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you dont agree with then I'm sorry for what ever my friend did on the computer. I appolgize. Also I'm requesting a mediation/conflict dispute. Okay. I want this to be settled calmly okay. We each talk this calmly okay. 75.13.16.43 (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming all of this stems from this user [104] with whom I and someone else (also vandalized) were having a problem, on some Bhutto pages. Also, the admins can correct me if I'm wrong, but using an IP address to get around a block is probably considered sockpuppetry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Bugs, I never herd of this user named Mosura. What are you talking about. Mosura who in the world is he. Okay , bugs first of all I dont know what or who is a Mosura. Second, I said to your many times I'm sorry, and Lastly if my forgiven I will not make vandalism again , or nor my friend. Okay. My friend made the "threat", but not really able to do it. He is just a idoit. So I'm sorry for that. Bhutto , vandialsm I am sorry for that to. I am asking for a second chance in 2008 . Can I be forgiven in the halls of the Wikipedia I am asking you all and God for a second chance. Well we all make mistakes I know that. I am just sorry for what happend there. 75.13.16.43 (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone is having difficulty keeping score (I know I am), the following are now all blocked:

1. 71.149.161.91 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) - Death threat
2. Eldorado91 (talk · contribs) - Incessant begging and trolling
3. 75.8.80.102 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) - More incessant begging and trolling before block
4. 75.13.16.43 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) - Eldorado91 evading block:

—Wknight94 (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A death threat has been made - what other option is there apart from contacting the authorities? Otherwise the excuse of "it wasn't me" will be made all the time. Let the user explain the situation to the police, it should be in their hands by now. Whitstable (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That would probably be the best option. But I think it's up to Bugs to make that decision seeing as he was the one threatened. Although, as the community, we could have an obligation to contact the authorities anyway. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 17:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what appropriate action I would need to take, other than reporting it here (which we kinda already did). If you mean going to the actual police... well, that could open the door to that character finding out where I live, and I don't need that. As he appears to be in San Antonio, maybe I could sic the Texas Rangers on him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading an incident with death threats before on here; Jimbo himself recommended contacting the authorities about it. If you're worried about him finding about where you live, I don't think the Police are allowed to reveal personal details about you and visa versa. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 17:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll take this offline with Wknight94, once I'm back at my home PC. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sensevivid

He is vandalizing the encylopedia by removing all placeholders on deceasead people. This is not a policy nor should he be in the right to do such a thing. He believes Wikipedia:Fromowner should permit fair-use to be more aligned with WP, and he is probably right. But no placeholder = No push for submission, and that means no image for a long period of time. EvanCarroll (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use actually contradicts with the goal of Wikipedia, which is to provide free content. Fair use content is not free, and cannot generally be reused in a commercial setting (depending on the context). The license Wikipedia uses requires that our content be freely reusable in any context. I don't actually know what 'placeholders on deceased people' means so now I'll go look. ^Avruchtalk 01:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There has never been a discussion on whether adding placeholders to deceased individuals is appropriate. Perhaps now is the time to start one? Wizardman 01:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, I'm not against the discussion, but I think removing editorial perms. for said user to maintain the status-quo is needed. I think a better discussion would be whether or not we want fair-use, and if we do why aren't we permitting it in the /Replace this image*/. Maybe User:Sensevivid could parallel his effort to the bureaucracy to get his agenda passed rather than enforcing it without mandate. EvanCarroll (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the user has been blocked for 3 hours by User:Chris G. BLACKKITE 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems sort of a strange thing to get upset about, myself: in essense, he's replacing a picture that says 'We have no picture' with nothing... HalfShadow (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He's replacing a picture that says "we have no picture, please upload a free one" with nothing. And he's doing so in mass quantity even when people have objected. And he's doing so because he thinks saying "don't upload what you claim is fair use" is a bad message. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a single-purpose account created for the purpose of removing the placeholders. This says to me that Sensevivid knew he would run into opposition, and created the account to shield his main account (whoever that might be) from the backlash of these actions.

Further, he has joined #wikipedia, where he is being rather uncooperative and intentionally obtuse.

Wikipedia exists to make a freely-licensed encyclopedia. Placeholder images attempt to encourage that. If you think they're ugly, that's a style issue that can be solved with a better placeholder. And if there is to be a mass removal of the placeholders, it should not be performed by an unknown person who ignores objections to his actions.

In my opinion, this person is not interested in working with others. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I was worried that members of the Wikipedia community would react angrily over how the edits were done, and not what the edits actually were. I was disappointed when some did. The placeholder doesn't say "we have no picture, please upload a free one", it says "we have no picture, you can only upload a free one" and only in select cases (deceased persons, defunct bands, companies etc.) Whereas conversely, you seem oblivious to what an edit actually does as long as it upholds the status quo, reverting en-masse, inserting free-use only placeholders into articles such as Ted Hughes, Clarence Williams, Luther Vandross, Gummo Marx, Gregory Hines... Sensevivid (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe User:Sensevivid was, in all fairness, acting in good faith. However, deceased persons DO have images available for a free license out there, and I also think once objections were raised they should have stopped; I've contacted many at Flickr who have been kind enough in the past to relicense a photo just so that it would appear here on Wikipedia. I also think that Wikipedia should limit "fair use" rationales as much as possible. A free license helps ensure Wikipedia's legal status, and allows for as much reuse as is possible down the line. I like talking with photographers, being honest about the pros of cons of licensing their work under a free license—and then having them contact me saying they will relicense the photo so that it can appear on Wikipedia. Sometimes a family member has a picture of their famous grandpa or grandma—the idea that one cannot obtain a free license for photos of the deceased is a preposterous one.(Mind meal (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

That's not the issue, it is possible to obtain a free-use image of a deceased person. But that doesn't mean we should insert a free-use only placeholder into the article. Images in Jayne Mansfield, Jimi Hendrix, and The Beatles should not be replaced with placeholders in case we can squeeze a free-use image out of their estate. A free-use image would be acceptable in an article such as Ted Hughes, the article will tell new users though, that it isn't acceptable. Sensevivid (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use is a last resort, not an option of equal preference. You are arguing against a straw man. The placeholders and upload forms do not say you cannot claim fair use. They ask for freely licensed materials and attempt to discourage those who do not understand fair use from trying to claim it. This is necessary based on past experience with large numbers of spurious fair use claims. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If the placeholders shouldn't be removed in quantity, then they also shouldn't be added in quantity. On quite a few articles it just encourages uploading copyvios. Gimmetrow 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)