Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive365

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Bluemarine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) evading ban on Wikimedia Commons 2 Possible copyright violations 3 None heared me before, but if you could, please block this disruptive socks! 4 Blocking request User:206.126.170.20 5 User:Suttonplacesouth 6 Incivility, Talk page violations, harassment, despite warnings, sock puppeteering, User:Griot 7 Matt Sanchez evading 1 year Arbcom block 8 User:CambridgeBayWeather Wikistalking User:MoralVictor 9 User editing another's 3RR report 9.1 Vandalizing Administrators board 10 Bear 11 HELP 12 the way i was treated 13 166.109.0.98 14 Self-cleaning glass spamming 15 Legal threat on Talk:Serio 16 Mrschimpf and Gladys j cortez 17 User:Cyrus111 making a mess again 18 An improper RfA 19 Blocked or not blocked? 20 User:Bubbamickmac 21 Backlog on WikiProject on open proxies 22 3RR violator continuing after block 23 Relentless Accusations of Plagiarism, Need Assistance 24 Fadix 25 IP posts the Jyllands-Posten cartoons on the talk page of a muslim 26 User:SandyGeorgia, User:MastCell, User:Eubulides POV issues on Wikipedia:Asperger_syndrome 27 wikipedia 28 :O 29 Odd page creation 30 Possible return of indef. blocked user Lysdexia? 31 Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation 32 Vandal? 33 User talk:Mike0001 34 207.191.191.20 35 User:Anthon01 35.1 Explanation 35.2 Background info regarding improper use of a sock by Anthon01 35.3 Is it worth having this user around? 35.3.1 Diffs of all kinds of problematic edits 36 User:VoABot II 37 NiggardlyNorm 38 Vandalism to Shel Silverstein 39 Removal of neutrality tags on disputed statement on Canada 40 Incarna Gaming Network / underconstruction template 41 Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism 42 AfD problem 43 Codyfinkedrholarhan 44 yo 45 User:Mike0001 46 Incivility User:Calton 46.1 Time out 47 User:Pfistermeister 48 Contentious MFD, need admin eyes (about to end) 49 Grand Duchy of Avram 50 User making up episodes of Transformers: Animated 51 IOND University 52 User:Retepretep 53 Jeeny (talk · contribs) → GeeAlice (talk · contribs) 54 Possible edit-war 55 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beyt_Tikkun 56 Philip Brady (broadcaster) 57 TRECA 58 User:JGJGJGJGJGJG 59 User:Cyrus111 making a mess again 60 Image:Janko Tipsarevic.jpg 61 I would like my talk page content restored 62 User:Teddy.Coughlin 63 129.133.124.199 - Continued hostility and incivil behaiviour 64 Backlog From Hell 65 Anon IP - incivility, refusal to discuss, what to do? 66 is this disruptive? 67 Thread reactivation (JzG blocks) 68 Soapboxing 69 User:OracleGD blanking his warnings 70 User:DX927 71 User:Zenwhat blocked indefinitely 71.1 Haggling 71.2 A ban is not the first step 71.3 Unblocked and put on probation 71.4 He's Back 71.5 Blocked for one week 71.6 There are far worse users who get a bye here at Wikipedia

[edit] Bluemarine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) evading ban on Wikimedia Commons

Banned User Matt Sanchez aka Bluemarine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is posting photos of himself to Wikimedia Commons here, in an apparent attempt to place more photos that violate copyright on his article page. If he's banned for one year on Wikipedia, shouldn't that also extend to Commons? --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse, En-wiki bans apply only to this project. If the user is misbehaving on Commons, the matter would have to be raised with Commons administrators. Commons is free-media only (no fair use) so one would assume that if the pictures are indeed copyvios, that would be addressed there expeditiously. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked his last upload, he's not putting any source, post this at common's admin board and it should be handled quickly. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've given the Commons account a warning and asked Mr Sanchez to provide the necessary source and licence information. If he does so and anyone then wants to contest that information, they can do so at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Sandstein (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible copyright violations

• Traveller2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This user has uploaded a number of photos from http://flickr.com/photos/traveller2020/ . Unfortunately, some are untagged and the Flickr page says all rights reserved, which contradicts the CC-BY-2.5 assertion made on some of the images (example | local copy). I've asked him to clarify the licensing info and/or email OTRS, but the problem is that he hasn't edited for 6 months... MER-C 12:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've sent him (assuming it is him, of course) a "flickrmail", copying most of the text of what you've written on his talk page, MER-C. He last uploaded to Flickr a few days ago, so he's more likely to see it there, I hope. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 12:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, he has replied affirming that the licence is correct on Flickr and the images on Wikipedia should be deleted. I can forward the mail to anyone who would like to see it. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 13:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If he is, in fact, the same person as this user, this is an attempt to revoke a license that he released the pictures under. —Random832 13:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Any with no tags will have to go, as the Flickr copyright statement trumps the information we have. But CC-BY/GFDL assertion is irrevocable, no matter what he puts elsewhere, and if he tagged them here as freely licensed, then freely licensed they are. But just the ones he uploaded, not the bigger versions on Flickr. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 14:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, any untagged ones have been deleted and the rest have valid CC-BY or GFDL/CC tags. The only exception is Image:ATTPlaza.jpg, where the tag was removed on 1 February by an IP and replaced with "All Rights Reserved". I've taken the liberty of reverting the IP. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 14:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] None heared me before, but if you could, please block this disruptive socks!

I am moving this post to WP:SSP. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking request User:206.126.170.20

Just warned for adding unsourced material, looking back at his/her talk page, this user has a history of vandalism and has been blocked in the past. Another block is in order.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a shared IP and has made only 1 edit in the past 6 days, so I don't think a block is in order quite yet. If the IP continues editing disruptively, then I'd suggest a rapidly escalating series of warnings (given its history) and reporting to WP:AIV, in which case a block will be forthcoming. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Suttonplacesouth

Believe this is a clear-cut case of a user who is continuing to reinsert lengthy POV content in article via IPs after an "informal final" warning. The first IP was blocked at WP:AIV but another admin referred me here. Requesting appropriate blocks on user and other IP, as well as a check on the IP range for similar activity. Please read all 6 links. Full report was:

• Suttonplacesouth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and
• 71.222.23.221 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) and
• 71.222.27.3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) See [1] (borderline vandalism) followed by clear-cut [2] and [3]. Also these warnings. Identity of user with IPs is obvious by edit contents. Please check the IP range for similar activity and let me know what happens. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility, Talk page violations, harassment, despite warnings, sock puppeteering, User:Griot

User:Griot is repeatedly inserting inappropriate content on my talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.87.47.110&action=history, despite warnings. User has deleted my comments from article talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ralph_Nader%27s_presidential_campaigns&diff=189055562&oldid=188984445. User continues to revert content on Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns, despite warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=189080131&oldid=189078953. Sock puppeteering, evidenced here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MiFeinberg&action=history and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:MiFeinberg. Thank you, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I make no comment to the charges of talk-page violations or of harassment, however I see no evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. Useing two separate accounts is expressly ALLOWED, except where the use of both accounts is an attempt to disrupt or to evade a prior block. I also don't see much evidence that these are the same person at all. They don't appear to edit in the same sorts of articles for the most part... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Also strongly suspect User:Sedlam is a sock puppet of User:Griot, with User:Feedler.User:Jayron32, I have never heard that sock puppets are allowed. Could you post the link that specifically verifies this? 76.87.47.110 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more examples of problems with Griot

Examples of likely sock puppetry

one two three four five

then begins extended rapidfire disruptive extended strafing as Sedlam: [4] through [5]

Then jumps back in as Griot for more disruptive editing.

Griot's Conflict of Interest

Griot describes his own serious personal grudge against Ralph Nader, yet persists in attempting to make the article show the subject in the most negative light, and disrupt efforts for balance.

False claims of "compromise"

Griot makes false claims compromises were reached on article content, than will supply article diffs, rather than actual talk page discussion, as "proof." Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think you've got a case for sockpuppetry, checkuser would be your best bet. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that the above statements by User:Boodlesthecat are true. User:Griot has been repeatedly warned about erasing talk pages, sock puppetry, disruptive reverting, POV pushing on articles and fabricating compromises, especially Ralph Nader and related, Chris Daly, Matt Gonzalez and others, yet the behaviors persist. It is too big of a problem for one user, or even two. Request assistance, please. Thank you, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet more abuse by Griot:

Deleting other editors talk page comments:

Here is one example of Griot deleting other editor's talk page comments; in this case deleting a request that he stop making obviously false mischaracterizations of other editors. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding fabrication and personal attack from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ralph_Nader%27s_presidential_campaigns&diff=189557192&oldid=189554703: "User 76.87.47.110's actions were deemed without merit -- because they have no merit." 76.87.47.110 (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Interested admins may want to note that the above IP (76.87.47.110 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)) was blocked in November for sockpuppeting -- oh, the irony -- and comes from the same ISP as the blocked-for-6-months IP 76.166.123.129 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) aka the now-blocked Teleogen (talk · contribs) aka The Nervous Mermaid (talk · contribs) (see also here), pursuing a years-long edit war on Ralph Nader and against User:Griot specifically. Lots of smoke, no fire, in other words. --Calton | Talk 02:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The above user was offered an incivility warning here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calton#Civility, which might explain his sudden presence and unfounded accusations. Attempts to discredit other editors do not erase or smoke screen the violations of User:Griot. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why yes, that must be it, considering that your "civility warning" -- which has already been called bogus or, the use the exact term, "unwarranted" -- 'was placed by you nearly 4 hours AFTER I posted the above[6]. In which chronological direction does cause and effect work for you?

If any evidence of the lack of substance to the ever-edit-warring anon were needed, that might be a good one. --Calton | Talk 15:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Calton, comments like "In which chronological direction does cause and effect work for you?" are uncivil. The editor pointed out that reverting content is not necessarily uncivil, but was not addressing your tone, which is. I see you have been warned and were recently blocked for incivility. Please try to remain WP:CIVIL. Thank you, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nooo, they're reality-based, commenting on the physical impossiblity of your latest absurd claim/paranoia. --Calton | Talk 06:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Calton, I've reported this latest, below. Attempts to egg me on and smoke screen the issue at hand will not work.

Returning to the matter at hand, User:Griot continues to revert edits to Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns, while flaming uncivil involvement from User:Calton, as here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calton&diff=prev&oldid=189790841. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Sanchez evading 1 year Arbcom block

refactored-86.44.6.14 (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/matthewsanchez. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 08:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This actually should go at arbitration enforcement.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked, since it seems pretty unambiguous. Is that an error on my part? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt was not "evading" a ban. He left one comment on my talk. Why the rush? John Vandenberg (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't? Editing on Wikipedia is a violation of the ban. So what do you call it? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 09:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The "comment" in question was an untruth in an attempt to purge his photo from his article page. A clear violation of his block. --Eleemosynary (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm beginning to see a lynch mob here, and it's not a pretty sight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Fut.Perf., I am guessing that that comment is aimed (at least in part) at me. For the record, other than talk pages, I have not communicated with any other editor before making a report to WP:AE. What about WP:AGF? Jay*Jay (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Banned means no editing, at all. Not by the banned account, a sock, future or past accounts, nor IP thereof. Why is that difficult to understand? From the ban policy: "no longer welcome" and "bans apply to the person and not the account." — Rlevse • Talk • 11:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is, I feel, way over the top. The guy has an article here at Wikipedia and he is entitled to ensure that it complies with the relevant policies, such as WP:BLP, VP:V et al. Yeah, he is evading a ban, but sadly, but it's down to a lack of foresight by the Arbcom people. Nudge him towards OTRS and we'll see what we can do, without Matt violating an oh so precious year long ban. Nick (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Enforcing ArbCom-sanctioned bans is not over the top at all. Being banned means no editing, period. If the ArbCom would have wanted to allow exceptions from the ban, they would have said so. Sandstein (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The point is just the big fuss that's being made about it. A banned user makes a single posting on the talk page of the admin who blocked him earlier. Even if formally a breach of the rules, it was something that was evidently not meant to be deceptive, disruptive, etc. The default assumption is that the admin will quietly deal with it, and that's it. Instead, we get a horde of people screaming and shouting with wild accusations, forum-shopping in half a dozen places, carrying the fuss over to commons and whatnot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What screaming and shouting, or wild accusations, or forum-shopping have you come across? Natalie (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Banned means banned. Period. It's not a big fuss, you're the one making a fuss, FutPerf. Banned does NOT mean "if it's a minor edit and I think it's okay, it is okay". It means no editing at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Setting aside the issue of who might or might not be "making a fuss", I do agree that banned editors should not be permitted to edit the Pedia whatsoever. If they have an issue, they must use the Wikipedia:OTRS. — Satori Son 12:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

When a banned user is himself or herself the subject of a mainspace article that he or she wishes to comment on, a difficult situation is created, which is one of the reasons that bans should be a last resort in these among other types of cases. Unfortunately, in this instance the user conduct was egregious, continuous, and really left little choice (and note this user is community banned and ArbCom banned). Someone should again steer the user in the direction of OTRS, and after a reasonable time a lifting of the ban can be requested through the ArbCom mailing list, although the committee would certainly need a major assurance that the problematic activity would not recur. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Compare with WP:NPA. The policy means no personal attacks, at all. Yet when a personal attack actually happens, what is the appropriate response? Usually to ignore it. A violation of policy is a violation of policy, but does not necessarily result in blocks, long threads on AN/I, etc. Or compare with 3RR. What do you usually do? If it's a few hours in the past, a first offense etc. you just do nothing usually, I think. I suggest just letting the admin in question handle this. (What's IAR for?) --Coppertwig (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion on the ArbCom discussion page here offering a potential way for blocked editors to be able to comment in a non-disruptive way on articles of which they are the subject. Comment is welcomed there, as it is an issue for ArbCom to consider, not one calling for admin action. Jay*Jay (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no doubt that this new account should be blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned user. However, I also believe that the user should be pointed toward OTRS. Just because a user has been banned, it does not mean that they cannot request incorrect and uncited information be corrected (as per WP:BLP), or that an inappropriate image cannot be removed. In this case, the image has indeed been removed, so no worries there. --Yamla (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:CambridgeBayWeather Wikistalking User:MoralVictor

Pretty clearcut case exposed by the contributions up to 14:41 : [7]. Earnestly desired that you might give that editor an etiquette check talking to about this and take other appropriate action. Seems to be a serial-reverter causing problems for actual contributors. Thanking you in advance, Upheld (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Upheld appears to be a sock of user:MoralVictor, sent request to look into this at WP:SSP. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Upheld, if you are going to run sockpuppets I suggest that you remember which account you are using. It was your edits I reverted not MoralVictor. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets indeed! Turns out both of the above are socks of DavidYork71 and have been blocked. I'd say this is resolved. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User editing another's 3RR report

x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My attention was called to this series of edits by User:G2bambino. It appears that he changed another user's 3RR report to one against that user. There may be more to this and I don't have the time to look into this now. I initially blocked G2bambino for 3 days but I am not 100% sure that this is the correct action, therefore I'm looking for someone else to check into it. Stifle (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Some background might be useful. I blocked G2bambino on 2 Feb for his 7 or 8th 3rr violation and made it 2 weeks given his long history of edit warring. I subsequently unblocked him after extracting a promise of 1RR for the remaining period of the original block. I saw the report at AN3 and asked him what it was about and was told that it was in retaliation for the report he had raised against the other editor and when I checked back on AN3 the state of the page (as apparantly edited by G2b) reflected this. Given this and what appeared to be a disruptive and vexatious report plus a pretty empty request for arbitration that has been turned down I blocked the other user for harrassment. I was suprised that G2b didn't seem bothered by this and went away to think. I realised that I had overreacted and unblocked the other user with a warning not to harrass again. They subsequently contacted myself and Stifle to advise of the altered report and here we are. I confess that I'm somewhat bemused by what has gone on (its late here and I have been up since 6am). I can't make head of tail of the diffs provided myself but would appreciate another admin thoroughly reviewing the situation. I apologise publically for issuing an incorrect and imperfectly considered block against the other user and can only throw myself on the mercy of the court for this. I recuse myself from further activity with either user. I should say that I have found G2b a very intractable user and I would personally suggest that, should further action beyond Stifle's block be considered, a decent sized block be imposed. I'm very disappointed that having given G2b a lifeline from his block that he goes and does something like this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sad, then, that you should cast a judgement on me when you clearly have no clue what went on and have taken one user's story completely at face value. In fact, Soulscanner is the instigator - perhaps accidentally, perhaps not - of all this. The process of events were as follows:

• I made a report against Soulscanner. 04:48, 7 February 2008
• Soulscanner then, in retaliation, made a report against me. 05:03, 7 February 2008
• Soulscanner then removed the report I made against him. 05:05, 7 February 2008
• Soulscanner then made a duplicate report against me. 08:08, 7 February 2008
• I then fixed one of Soulscanner's duplicate reports back to the way mine was before he deleted it, leaving his in place untouched. 16:52, 7 February 2008

Another fine example of Wikpedia justice in action. --G2bambino (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Why don't you just wait until an untired admin with time to wade through this responds? I may have misjudged this (in which case you will get an apology). How about you cut me some slack for being tired now and accept that everyone is human. I haven't seen any justice dished out just yet; stifle unblocked you to get this looked at. I have taken no admin action against you. You must admit its a mess. I'm going to bed. Night all. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, fair enough; but I ask the exact same of you. As I'm sure you're aware, events before this had already left me wondering about my continued participation in Wikipedia. But then this person comes along and files a spurious RfA regarding my "behaviour," creates a bogus 3RR report against me for a page I haven’t edited in months, and now has gone from page to page to page to page screeching about this supposed crime, which is just a mess that his mistake caused in the first place! I'd also say being swiftly blocked for three days was indeed judicial. Needless to say, my patience has worn very thin, and I apologise if it's showing too clearly. --G2bambino (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalizing Administrators board

I accept Spartaz's apology. It is not his fault. He assumed good faith, which is what Wikipedia is all about. He blocked me because he sincerely thought I was harassing G2bambino with specious claims. Spartaz has been the victim of a rather crude scam. When you see something on an Administrators board, you assume that people won't have the audacity and time to vandalize it and deliberately misrepresent other people's posts. Spartaz has the right to be angry, and I think I do too. He has been suckered into abusing his priveledges, and I've been the victim of the scam. The facts can be discerned by simply examining 2 key posts at the history page of the 3RR board.

• I originally posted 2 reports of G2bambino and 1 of is associate Quizimodo who had twice indulged in tag team edit warring with my posts to circumvent 3RR rules. Administrator Stifle issued warning decisions imploring them to cease. This link documents the situation before G2bambino began altering my posts. . You will see my 3 reports on the bottom of the page. Administrator [User:Stifle|Stifle] issued warnings to G2bambino and Quizimodo (Please see link to verify.)
• G2bambino then altered my first report on him to make it appear like his report against me. He then suggested that my second post (refering to a previously unreported edit war in October similar to yesterday's edit war) was in retaliation against his make-believe post. (please see link) Spartaz read it, and issued a block against me. He did this with no warning. He then later reconsidered and undid the block. I figured out what was going on by carefully examining the history page, reported this to him, he apologized, and I accepted (actually, even before he apologized). It was a malicious and willful attempt to get me blocked. He has vandalized an Administrator board in pursuit of a personal vendetta, and victimized an Administrator who was simply assuming good faith.

I warn you that he will probably alter this post, arguing with the facts, hurl personal insults, and render this discussion impossible to follow. This has been his way ina ll his dealings with me. He has driven many editors into exasperation and fatigue with such tactics. I urge you to block him until Administrators can verify the facts presented here. --soulscanner (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your actions, and mine, are clearly spelled out in the edit summary of the 3RR notice board; I have highlighted the specific ones above. Your conspiracy theories are well known, but let's see what others have to say about your actions over the past two days. --G2bambino (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In chronological order, edits to WP:3RRN with respect to User:Soulscanner and User:G2bambino, oldest first:

• soulscanner
• soulscanner
• G2bambino
• soulscanner
• soulscanner <- soulscanner removes G2bambino's report
• G2bambino
• soulscanner
• soulscanner
• G2bambino <- Appears to be the offending edit
• G2bambino
• G2bambino
• G2bambino
• G2bambino
• G2bambino
• G2bambino

I'll let others decide on what to do here. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for god's sake, I see what's happened now.

• I made a report against Soulscanner. 04:48, 7 February 2008
• Soulscanner then made a report against me. 05:03, 7 February 2008
• Soulscanner then deleted the report I made against him with the edit summary "Removing duplicate post." 05:05, 7 February 2008
• Soulscanner then made another different report against me. 08:08, 7 February 2008
• I then altered Soulscanner's report from 05:03, 7 February 2008, not seeing it was actually different to his report of 08:08, 7 February 2008, and thinking it was the duplicate that Soulscanner had intended to remove when deleting my report against him.

I think that clarifies what happened; I made a mistake in not reading Soulscanner's two near-identical and concecutive reports carefully enough, and I apologise. But it leaves me wondering: why did Soulscanner delete my report against him in the first place? --G2bambino (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow, you're right. Oh man, I'm so sorry. I remember now. I thought your post was my duplicate post. Oh, I feel stupid. What a waste of time. I apologize to everyone here. --soulscanner (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• G2bambino - I promised that I would apologise if I was wrong and so I was. I was undoubtedly a dick and should have assumed good faith. I should have gone to bed and not tried think when I was dead on my feet. Sorry. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Methinks we can put this as resolved, and let the 3RR reports be handled if they haven't already. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bear

Can an admin please fix the page moves on Bear? Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HELP

Camel HOW COME Camel does not show?????

HELP--Goon Noot (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have fixed it. Awesome camel, by the way. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It does show.--Hu12 (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the way i was treated

Earlier i set up an account and added a page about my religion Martynism and was horified when it got deleated and i got called silly by ine of your admisitrators for this i think it is un acceptable!! all i wanted was an apology but i got further insulted when he told me to go to unencypledia.com to place my information on there!! i feel the way i was treated was wrong!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laneo (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want us to comment you'll need to tell us the exact name of the article in question, so we can examine circumstances for ourselves. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The article in question is Martynism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), created by Ben martyn is smelly (talk · contribs). The article was rightfully speedied as nonsense, you haven't been treated wrongly, and there's no need for admin intervention here. If you want to make jokes, please go to Uncyclopedia or build your own website. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left the user a welcome message and full details of Wikipedia policy on nonsense articles made up in one day. Educate and inform, I say :o) ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 13:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - this doesn't need any more action here, User:The Anome was perfectly right in the way they acted; the account that created the article deserved to be blocked, and from the deletion summary it seemed to deserve being speedied as unsalvageable content. — alex.muller (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 166.109.0.98

- Blocked by User:AndonicO

• 166.109.0.98 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) Vandalism after longterm final warning. diff. This vandalism was reverted a bot and IP was given a weak warning, but final warning was issued just three days ago and the IP had made no edits since then. Three previous blocks, no constructive edits. Torc2 (talk) Torc2 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked by AndonicO for 72 hours. In the future, please address this at WP:AIV. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Self-cleaning glass spamming

There is a discussion about Self-cleaning glass on Talk:Self-cleaning glass, which needs third person imput, User:Mikkalai, removed the speedy delete templates on brandname SunClean and Pilkington Activ he started himself, wont agree on removing the manufacturer part on the article, however i believe its an active editor, so what to do. Mion (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What you didn't mention is that both are not articles he started, but simple redirects, one to the company that makes the brand and the other to the generic product article. Is it even possible for a redirect to be spam, or speedily deletable? In any event I don't see that this is spam at all. Plus, the user listed both competing companies - he's obviously not shilling for one of them or the other. I cleaned up the Self-cleaning glass article slightly to mention the manufacturers in prose (and avoid the links to redirects) rather than listing them so it would be less of a list. Beyond that, I don't see how this is possibly important enough to worry about. I'm not an administrator so I'll let the administrators decide if this is worthy of intervention. Wikidemo (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Like i said, he started the redirects to extrapromote the brand, i didn't say Mikkalai started the articles, so i didn't mention that, now to prevent editwars, the speedy delete template states, you can add {{hangon}} and give your argument to an admin, there is no exception for that. Mion (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the new edits on the article from user Wikidemo, moving the disputed content from the left to the right of the article is not changing anything in my opinion. However it gets interesting, even if internal spamming is not seen the same as external spamming, the page is used as yellow pages, and for that, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Mion (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC).

User:Mion has to be explained that their notion about "spamming" are nontraditional, to put it mildly. What I am doing with the article is kinda "industrial espionage" rather than "advertising" or something. Also, I would ask someone to advice them that a better good is in expanding articles instead of messing with formalities and bickering in talk pages. 'Míkka>t 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Does Mikka work for both Pilkington and PPG? I don't think so. I'd call those plausible search terms, and therefore reasonable candidates for redirects. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, my notion of SPAM is not so nontraditional, Wikipedia_talk:Spam#Internal_link_spamming, it might not be covered by WP:SPAM, which is used as an argument now, it still is in conflict with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and to be traditional, brandnames are copyrighted and non free, use of them is not advised/discouraged on wikipedia, this might change if you deliver proof of permission to Wikipedia:OTRS. Cheers Mion (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To follow the advice : I ask an admin to rollback them all, add a speedy delete template on the brandname redirects and posting a warning on the user's talk page that the editor is not only being disruptive but should read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Mion (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Brand names are trademarked, not copyrighted. And you're misinterpreting that "internal link spamming" definition. —Random832 14:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And trademarks are copyrighted, however this might be different per country. Mion (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That might be, but for me yellow pages provide productinformation, and related company names and brands, according to the yellow pages definition it looks like this article Self-cleaning glass. Mion (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved this discussion to the proper talkpage Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#.3D.3D_Self-cleaning_glass_spamming_.3D.3D, any follow up on this discussion please on the talkpage of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Mion (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat on Talk:Serio

After the page on a Chicano rapper named Serio was deleted at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serio), an anonymous editor left a legal threat here, stating that she wishes to seek legal action if Serio's page is not undeleted, due to the fact that "it tends that over half of the Chicano Rappers pages have been deleted... Some of which are very known artists and have had heavy radio rotation." User goes on to say "Please place his article back or he will do whatever it takes we have already contacted the office in Florida and are trying to resolve this without action. We are aware of the policies of Wikipedia and know how it works. However we will move forward to see that all Mexican American Rap Artists are treated fairly on the English Wikipedia site and that authors or admins are correct in their judgment and not bias towards are people especially Serio." I am not sure of what office in Florida she has contacted, but this nonetheless sounds very serious. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The office in Florida, the editor is talking about, I assume, was our former HQ in St. Petersburg. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a very similar case, as I recall, in which Fark.com was ordered to link to a particular news story which was, in the words of Antonin Scalia writing for the six justice majority, "clearly cool". I hope the Foundation's prepared to pay its lawyers overtime on this one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that the very same IP created a page on the Spanish Wikipedia about this subject. It also has been blocked three times relating to this matter. And there's sockpuppetry as well. I'd recommend a long term block as they clearly don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia. MER-C 07:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Page containing threat deleted per CSD G8. —Kurykh 07:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the user for a month per WP:NLT, of course I'm willing to reconsider the block if the threat is withdrawn. As a side note I'm somewhat skeptical about the user's claim, she says that she has connections with the rapper but a few months ago this same address wrote this on the article's talk page: "Please don't remove page serio is my favorite rapper I am a huge fan and all my friends listen to him at my school. He is the best rapper I have heard in a long time. Thanks Wikipedia for having him on here. Sincerley, Hector Suarez" its everyone decision to make but the options are either a school age fan or part of Serio's legal team, and to be honest my opinion is inclining towards the first. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

She actually claims to be an employee of his record label, not a member of his legal team; it's plausible that someone from his record label would have posed as a fan to try to make him look more credible than he is. Or it's possible that both posts were by Serio himself.

But in any event, you're all taking this much too seriously. This whole incident is hilarious. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the entire history, and the AFD itself, the entire situation is like a bad rash that won't go away. Rlevse was around and is familiar with it. Most of the puppet rings includes User:63.224.213.47, User:67.185.23.74‎, User:Serio1, User:Serio2, User:Serio3 and include "official" letters from his self-owned publisher/basement/whatever. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Further commentary by one of the socks here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mrschimpf and Gladys j cortez

These guys think ACMEMan is Gsnguy. Thats a lie!!! ACMEMan is a good editor! Gsnguy is a very bad editor!! Eartha Brute (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Oh look. I came here to post that an individual by the name of Judge Jones had decided to make his user page a "courtroom" against me and another user, and what do I find? An entirely "third" user, this charming soul, has already done my work for me, albeit in a slightly-different form than I'd planned. I'll be ducking over to WP:RFCU now...this looks fairly cut-and-dried to me. (If you take a look at my talk page, I think you'll see what a tempest in a teapot this is....sorry for the bother.)(Oh, and by the way, AcmeGSNEarthaJones, you're supposed to post at the BOTTOM when making a report. Just a thought. Moving this there....)Gladys J Cortez 13:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(Moved, formatting and spelling intact, from the top of the page where it didn't belong.)

Judge Jones (talk · contribs) and Eartha Brute (talk · contribs) both blocked permanently for harassment. Instant response: this and this, leading to an instant permanent block of James Bond3232 (talk · contribs) as well. Neat. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 14:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And James Bond3232a (talk · contribs), too. Fun! ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 14:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I go to sleep early for one night :-P...Anyways, I was not saying for sure these accounts were related in my conversations about the subject with Gladys and on WP:TVS, I was saying they may be related. However with last night's funny business around these accounts I'm ready to confirm they are all related. I got an email this morning saying I had a password change which was probably initiated by one of these accounts using the forgotten password feature, which didn't work because that new password (which I can assure you will NOT be activated) only goes to my private email address. The similarities between all of these accounts is obvious if you look at each of their histories; one of them had tried to put a block template on my talk page, when I can assure you I've never come close to one since I avoid tenous edit wars all I can. Thank you Gladys and Redvers for coming to my aid in my absence, you both did a great job containing all of this hassle. Nate • (chatter) 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, thanks as always. That reaction on your talk page was teh zexy--clearly, this user is very "special". But as I said to Nate--at least now, having had an attack page created against me and having had to file an RFCU, I can say with pride that I'm a REAL Wikipedian!! Gladys J Cortez 22:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Y'all can mark this one resolved--the RFCU came back quacktacular. Again, sorry for the kerfuffle. Gladys J Cortez 01:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cyrus111 making a mess again

Unresolved incident resubmitted because the user came back to insert [8] his undue stuff again without any intention to resolve the disagreement per TALK. Quote:

This user tries to revive Aryans and does not mind to use false references to fill Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA) (and reinsert stubbornly) with WP:UNDUE gibberish:

[9].

Moreover, he tries to put material together in a way that constitutes original research (WP:SYNTH), even though he does not manage for the "simple" reason that his sourced references don't support his claims for a bit. This is POV-pushing and in violation of WP:NOR. To be sure, this does not have anything to do with a justified encyclopedic compilation using proper quotes. One example of this abuse of sources out of three:

• His own quote "The Kurgan's thesis is the predominant model of Indo-European origins and likely the origin of the spread of R1a and R1a1." he sourced with Mallory (1989:185). Apart from the very one-sided inaccuracy of the first part of this statement, Mallory was absolutely agnostic of the gene R1a1 in 1989.

I don't know yet what policy he is violating by putting references around his claims using quotes that don't match, still this looks a pretty serious violation of something.

1. An assessment to the abuse of his sourced references you'll find at Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)#Iran_and_Central_Asia
2. We also had discussions here:[10]
3. And also here: [11]

Please do something, because nothing works to make him stop. Rokus01 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokus01 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute? It looks like one, and it is not for Administrator attention (Administrators cannot weigh in on content disputes with their various tools). If it is, then see dispute resolution. Looking at that, I suggest a request for comment. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An improper RfA

Could someone please take a look at this interesting RfA by a novice editor, where the only support would appear to be a cunning little bit of sockpuppetry. It hasn't been properly formatted, so isn't appearing at WP:RFA, but when / if it did, I have no doubt WP:SNOW would apply. Can it be snipped in the bud? Or does it have go through the motions? gb ^{(t, c)} 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that name looked familiar. See the differently-capitalized Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/mr kc, which I snow-closed a month ago. (on a tangent, actual capitalization should be "/Mr kc".) Since it isn't transcribed, I'd suggest a talk with the editor on his talk page about how RfA's work before he does transcribe it. --barneca (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll delete it as a improperly formed duplicate if there are no objections. Rudget. 18:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK - I've left a message suggesting he {{db-author}} it, and pointed him at WP:SOCK. I have no objection to it being deleted, of course. I think, given it's a newbie and the principles of WP:BITE, it can probably be left at this stage (but I'll keep a cursory eye on his contributions). gb ^{(t, c)} 18:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best actions as of now. Diligence at work. :) Rudget. 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked or not blocked?

I'm not sure how this works...

Yesterday my bot SatyrBot (talk · contribs) started doing stuff I didn't like and wouldn't shut down. So I blocked it. I've gone in and cleaned up the code and put in an emergency shut-off valve (so I don't have to block anymore), and un-blocked it. If I log in as the bot, I can edit. But when I tell the bot to run on its server, it can't - and it has an autoblock error. Is there something blocking the IP address the bot's server runs on? How do I test that and/or remove it?

Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I cleared the autoblock. Try it now. Next time try blocking with autoblock off. I'm too tired to explain how to find autoblocks when the tool is down (seems like months) but drop me a note on my talk page if you are interested and I'll explain how. If you feel like doing a favour in return, please feel free to sort out the mess in the preceding section.  :). Now I'm really off to bed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that seems to have cleared it. I can't promise I can clear up the above nearly as quickly :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

PS the TS is back up, but with ugly replag for s1, and worse replag for s3 :( – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bubbamickmac

Is this edit worth keeping this user around? -[12] - I gave them a level one vandalism warning, but I'm thinking it should have been stronger. Corvus cornix_talk 23:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the sort of fella who never lasts long. Lawrence § t/e 23:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This user should get, at a minimum, a 36 hour block. This should happen just about anytime anyone has demonstrated they are here to attack editors (add:esp. when it can be ascertained to be personal, and dragged over to wiki from real life). If they come back from that and do it again, indef block the account. R. Baley (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The editor who was being attacked has a user name which appears to coincide with "Northern Highlands High School". Sounds like somebody he knows. Corvus cornix_talk 00:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That just makes it worse, and I am monitoring the situation. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

31 hour block issued for Bubbamickmac. Vsmith (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog on WikiProject on open proxies

The WikiProject on open proxies has a large backlog that needs clearing. If any admins are looking for a task to do, your presence is requested on this page. Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violator continuing after block

156.110.42.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked for 3RR after continually adding the same list of facts over and over. The instant their block expired, they immediately continued. I think a sterner warning and a longer block would be appropriate. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Except they haven't reverted anything? I don't see where a second 3RR block is needed here, since there's not even one revert by the user since the block expired. Could you explain the problem in more detail, so that we can see what's up? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have outlined more diffs. This user reinserted the same material a total of ten times before the article was protected and he was blocked. His block just ended and he simply restored it again. He's also reverted again since I reported this. He never responds to warnings on his talk pages, instead just using edit summaries as he reverts. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relentless Accusations of Plagiarism, Need Assistance

Editor Cfrito persists in accusing me of plagiarism. This is a harsh accusation to hurl, not to mention reputation threatening. I have reviewed the complaint and found it absurd at face value. Not only have I not plagiarized, Cfrito has not even depicted plagiarism yet he keeps making his accusation. I have marked some of this editor's instances of hurling this accusation against me. At this link administrators can find his first allegation of plagiarism. At this link is found his second allegation of plagiarism. At this link you will find his third allegation of plagiarism against my person. At this link you will find my warning for him to cease the allegation of plagairism. At the following link administrators can see that he persists in his allegation. Cfrito’s reputation damaging accusation must end, or else someone needs to show me where I have plagiarized. I appreciate assistance.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fadix

User:Fadix was banned by decision of the arbitration committee for 1 year, [13] and his ban was reset twice for evasion with socks. [14] Now he is posting evidence to the new arbitration case with his new self-admitted sock account Rodolui (talk · contribs). [15] Is it OK for a banned user to post evidence to arbitration cases and talks of articles? Grandmaster (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Posting with a sock is not ok. I could see unblocking the main account SOLEY for the purpose of editing the RFAR page, if and only if the arbitration committee feels there is something important for this user to say. (Don't know, haven't looked at this particular case.) --B (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

He tried to do the same during the previous AA case: [16] His sock account was blocked, edits reverted and ban reset. Grandmaster (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A banned user can email arbcom if they have pertinent information. The user has identified themself as Fadix, so I have blocked the account. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As these issues often clog up ANI and because a ban may be reset if the community agrees that the account is a sock of Fadix, I have opened Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fadix (2nd) for further comment. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP posts the Jyllands-Posten cartoons on the talk page of a muslim

About ten minutes ago, 61.69.35.1 (talk · contribs) told us to remove the images of the prophet Muhammad from Wikipedia. A few minutes later, 75.164.187.15 (talk · contribs) posted the Jyllands-Posten cartoons of Muhammad on the talk page of 61.69.35.1. Is a stern warning enough? Or has this happened before? Is this something to keep an eye out for? Aecis^Brievenbus 00:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a level one vandalism warning to User:75.164.187.15. Corvus cornix_talk 00:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Level one seems on the low side for what was clearly a deliberate attempt to provoke an editor's religious sensitivities. Bencherlite^Talk 00:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a level 3 (formerly "blatant vandalism") would havew been appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to deleting the edit--or even to oversight it. DGG (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It does no good to jump the queue, or admins will remove it at WP:AIV for not having given the user the full series of warnings. Corvus cornix_talk 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The warning should be for use of copyright images in a context where fair use is not allowed. The religious sensibilities of someone who makes what appear to be legal and other threats from a single-purpose/single-edit IP address shouldn't count for anything. Argyriou (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit was clearly in bad faith and an attempt to provoke the other anon. "The religious sensibilities of someone..." - they are still a person and deserve respect. Let's not make a bad situation worse by suggesting that we only care about people who are nice to us and others can be treated like crap as long as there isn't a copyright violation in the process. Mr.Z-man 00:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I strongly disagree. This user has an issue with the images. We have made a consensual decision not to let such issues change our stance. But that doesn't mean that shoving such images in the face of the user is alright. When the user views articles about Muhammad, he or she may expect images of Muhammad. But no users expects to see the image when clicking "You've got a new message." This was a clear and deliberate attempt to offend a muslim user. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(double ec) Agree with Z-man and Aecis. Just because someone makes an apparent threat does not mean that it's open season for others to retaliate. Bencherlite^Talk 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Corvus, there is no rule that says that warnings must always start at level one. The level of faith required for each warning is illustrated at Wikipedia:WARN#Multi-level templates - a bad faith edit can get a level three warning straight away. No admin will say "he's vandalised past a level 4, but never had a level 1, so I'll let him off for now". Bencherlite^Talk 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no rule, but it has always been my experience that if a vandal doesn't get four warnings, the person doing the vandal fighting is the one who gets slapped in the face for reporting it to WP:AIV (and not even getting a notice that the nomination has been removed) so that the vandal can continue with their efforts. Corvus cornix_talk 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Corvus: I changed the AIV rules so that a full series of warnings wasn't required (which is unneedlessly bureaucratic) to a more sensible, more likely followed way of reporting - if an editor has vandalised, knows they're doing it, and hasn't stopped, only a lvl4 or a lvl3+4 is needed. If an admin insists on the former, they really really shouldn't have the tools unless they can show at least an ounce of common sense. Will ^(talk) 00:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Corvis' hesitation is rightly felt, we've seen the sort of backlash he describes before; however, I think that community consensus on this is that for either the image use, or the generally hateful use of the images, a higher level warning would be acceptable. Both, taken in provocation oriented context, clearly have community support for either the lvl 4 or the 'One chance warning'. And that's kind, i'd put a month long IP block in place if I had the buttons. ThuranX (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Its just a generic residential IP, a month would most likely be overkill by about 29 days. Mr.Z-man 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I'm no good at understanding IP to English translations, so it's jsut as well that I lack the button for that, although wouldn't a generic residential IP mean that it's one that's more or less tied to a household? ThuranX (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is really bad that Argyriou think it is OK to attack Muslims. Here people can go to jail for this kind of attacks. The user should get a long block. --Kaypoh (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Woah! Point to one single solitary thing I have said which says that I think it's ok to attack Muslims. I demand a retraction and an apology immediately. 03:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix (talk • contribs)

I misread the part about the level one warning. If you think this attack should get a level one warning, it means you think he should get away with attacking Muslims. But when I read it again, I see you just think that you must give a level one warning and go up to a level four warning or the admins won't block the user. My English is not so good. Now I give you a retraction and apology. By the way, I think a level one warning is not enough and he should get a long block or a higher level warning. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was flabbergasted at the accusation, and probably reacted harshly, but I didn't want that sort of reputation. Corvus cornix_talk 05:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it really offfensive that Attiq Ur Rehman thinks it's ok to attack free speech. In a free country like the United States, where Wikipedia is located, people are free from the censorious behavior of religious "authorities". People like Ur Rehman should go to jail for their attempted censorship. Argyriou (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so if you block someone, you hate Muslims. But not blocking them means you hate Muslims, too? Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means, that's not any sort of behavior I'd want to see encouraged or tolerated. Racial, cultural, and religious attacks must be non-starters in our community. Definitely the user should have been warned and monitored, and blocked if they had continued. I'm inclined to see the single edit from 75.164.187.15 in a rather negative light, but I have to admit it's pretty hard to accurately read intention from a single text-free edit. In context, this is essentially posting a shock image on someone's user talk. Definite no-no. This seems to be resolved, for now, pending new developments. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Obvious baiting should be removed, if persistant block the offender. WilyD 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely unacceptable for that IP to have posted those pictures. There's no need to go through the traditional warning process in this case, the same way we wouldn't go through it for a vandal who used slurs against a gay editor, or a jewish editor. We'd block that account immediately. Seeing as it's an IP, blocking isn't a first-choice response, but we certainly shouldn't be tolerating it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:SandyGeorgia, User:MastCell, User:Eubulides POV issues on Wikipedia:Asperger_syndrome

Asperger's Syndrome is a complex disorder in which functional deficits co-occur with areas of talent. This has been demonstrated clinically in large scale studies.

The article, and the small group of editors currently prevailing there, reject and revert any contribution which attempts to include this information. This has been going on for quite some time.

I placed a POV tag on the article, and added some material as a start. I knew a certain skepticism prevailed, so i stuck with the highest quality sources, world-famous researchers and research centers, peer reviewed with PMID's, etc. Within 24 hours my work was expunged, the POV tag repeatedly removed, and I received several threats to my userpage.

Not to take up too much of your time, but to recap,

I added this ...[17]

User:SandyGeorgia deleted the POV tag, due to my low edit count. She insists I need the group's permission to place the tag. She also moves my contribution to the trailing section [18]

The inevitable debate ensues in Talk, and I insist the tag is not placed by group consent, but precisely to indicate there are is an ongoing debate (and to welcome the reader to visit the debate in Talk.) I replace the POV tag, and polish what little material i have had chance to add thus far. User:MastCell then moves the tag from the Article to a subsection : [19]

I move it back, explaining that I find that POV applies to the entire article : [20]

I add a dozen or so sources to support this in Talk, here:[21]

User:Eublides removes the POV tag once again. He then removes my contributions to the article (with 2 out of 3 sources) - without so much as waiting for me to reply in Talk. [22]

Obviously I am not a newb; in fact an old timer who invoked his Jimbo-given Right To Disappear. But that shouldn't matter.

I am saddened that a newb coming here, regardless of his sources and good faith should be required to ask permission to simply disagree, and can expect his edits to be summarily zapped. I also have apparently accused of being "off-wiki canvassed" or some such thing. Anyway, you get the idea. Sitadel (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging is an issue which has no good resolution; that is, when individuals bring up arguments about the neutrality of an article which have either been settled before, or which have no basis in fact. Often, in these cases, editors come to the conclusion that there needs to be an agreement that the disagreement is substantially different from those which have come before, and been addressed. --Haemo (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page review of the situation begins here, along with links to off-Wiki canvassing and another fine example of a civil discussion towards consensus among the regular editors at Asperger syndrome, who all six unanimously agreed the POV tag was unwarranted and worked towards incorporating Sitadel's concerns. Because of ongoing off-Wiki canvassing, this article is going to need extra eyes. (I notified Eubulies and MastCell they had been mentioned here.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure of your problem here. I found this on the talk page of AS.

I'll second what Colin has said, and add that the material proposed by Sitadel (talk · contribs) is sourceable and relevant. There will inevitably be some back-and-forth about how to present the sources most accurately, but no one is out to get anyone and I think all of the people who have commented here (including Sitadel) share the goal of making this a better article, so let's work from there. One point of Colin's that deserves special reinforcement is that on an article like this, which has been the subject of extensive discussion and collaboration, it's often best to come directly to the talk page if one of your edits has been reverted, and discuss it. Often that will lead to a solution everyone's happy with, whereas reinserting the material without coming here just gets everyone worked up. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This does not sound like they are opposed to the content you are trying to add. I'm not sure this is the best place for your question. I'd suggest you need to work with the user on the talk page to reach a consensus, at least give it a week. Then possibly go for mediation. David D. (Talk) 05:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Mastcell has not been a problem, and on second thought I shdn't list him here. The problem is, specifically, I have not been allowed to add a POV tag even tho everybody admits a POV debate is in progress. It has been reverted 3 times now. What's that tag for, again? Perhaps the reader would like to join this discussion.

I have not been allowed to edit the article, my material was removed within 24 hours, despite the quality of the sources.

I appreciate Mastcell's invitation to discussion, but honestly - if i don't have the right to place a POV tag on an article undergoing a POV discussion, nor the right to add two sentences citing neurological studies in medical literature - if i must advocate for these very unsubtle and basic things - what can I expect to come out of a week-long debate?

In any case, my problem is with what has occurred, not what is about to occur. I do welcome MastCell's comment and reiterate I have no real complaint against him. Sitadel (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(afterthought) It is easy to forget (I have sometimes forgotten) that wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy. Six 'regular editors do not trump a newb. It's policy that matters, and opposing points of view should find comprises within policy. It is precisely the tension of disagreements that improve an article, by highlighting controversy and illucidating all sides.

But all views must be given an equal chance. I am not allowed to edit the article, yet the opposing editors are making hourly edits. I am not allowed to add a POV tag, even tho a POV tag was added by SandyGeorgia some months ago when she wished to introduce changes. The prevailing group of editors demand concessions they themselves refuse to offer.

Long story short, one editor cannot demand a POV tag be removed, and cannot summarily delete well-sourced contributions. Sitadel (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If everyone is aware there is a POV problem I wouldn't worry about the tag. Just try and reach a compromise on the talk page and then add the text. I imagine the reason your edits are being reverted is that you are not close to a compromise yet. If the topic is controversial it is quite normal to workout the text on the talk page, or even a subpage, before adding it to the article. David D. (Talk) 07:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The reader is not aware there is a POV problem. Perhaps the reader would like to participate in the discussion! Sitadel (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if you get it sorted out fast enough there would be no need. Do you imagine this will be a long protracted fight? It will if you spend a lot of time here. As far as I can tell there is nothing unusual about just getting the job done without tags. It's not like the article is wrong, its just an absense of another view. How long do you thjink it will take? David D. (Talk) 08:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I just went to the talk page to see what is slowing down the process.

Sitadel - this has been discussed before, you are pulling information from the archives which has already been dealt with - in some cases, twice. The page requires new information, because we've already dealt with this. Three times as of 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC) As SG said, much of this would be good in the HFA page, which is quite bare of content and has I think only 3 soures. HFA does not equal AS. I'm reaching the point of asperity. WLU (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't have a case for the material you want to add, that would be why they are removing the POV tag, there is consensus against your additions. You need to work closely with Mastcell since he clearly saw an the need for some content to give more balance and might be able to craft something with you that has appropriate sources for the AS topic. David D. (Talk) 08:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I am one of the 'orrible editors who threatened Sitadel. Though actually, the threat which we (myself and SandyGeorgia) made was to point out the WP:3RR in case Sitadel attempted to replace the POV tag three times in one day after multiple editors removed it. It is not a threat since neither I nor Sandy are admins, so we can't block someone. And we have pointed out to Sitadel, possibly to the point of exhaustion, that on wikipedia, high-functioning autism, autism and Asperger syndrome are not the same thing. The references Sitadel pulled out of the archives were all about HFA, autism or general autistic spectrum disorders, and therefore not appropriate or specific enough for the Asperger page, which is a featured article. And as I am quoted as saying above, these very articles have been dealt with repeatedly (thrice now), with exactly the same arguments and comments from both sides. The one RS discussing advantages of AS in processing fine-grained details is on the page (though it is specific to the autism spectrum rather than AS, and therefore a stretch to include it) is included here. WLU (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the comment about the 'right to disappear'. I understand the right to disappear, but if it's official, if you really disappear (as opposed to merely leaving the project or simply not editing anymore), then do you have the right to come back under a new identity whenever you feel like it? User:Zeraeph recently invoked her right to vanish during an arbitration hearing. I believe that the right to unvanish should be made publicly and at least in Z's case, through the arbitration committee. If it's a matter of ceasing to edit, then no RTV is needed. If it's a true RTV, and involves admin, bureaucrat or something other than simply abandoning an account, then my opinion is that the right to unvanish should happen through some sort of official channel. Otherwise, my opinion is it's not the right to vanish/unvanish, it's just sockpuppeting. WLU (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sitadel is not Zeraeph (talk · contribs), IMO. Sitadel is, however, posting and revisiting exact text well discussed multiple times in archives that has been spread across at least three autism activist websites by other former editors posting on websites with Zeraeph, who was in regular e-mail contact with at least two other former AS editors. Canvassing on the autism articles is and will remain an issue. ([23][24][25][26]) Extra eyes will always be needed; we added {{recruiting}} to the talk page. Sitadel's list of sources has been covered over ... and over ... and over. The sources are either not about Asperger syndrome and/or have been refuted by other more reliable sources, and every other editor (at least seven now) who has looked at them has come to the same conclusion. Nonetheless, we worked in one of Sitadel's points even though it's a stretch to include the info non-specific to Asperger's, and even though we then had to add the refuting text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) speculation on who I am in real life is inappropriate here.

David, I will take you up on your suggestion to work with MastCell. I must point out the following tho,

a)Most of those sources did not receive a syllable of discussion in Talk. They were ignored. You can check this for yourself.

b)We cannot argue - ever - that sources have "already been dealt with in Talk." It is wikipedia's very heart and soul that new people come along, or existing people take up interests in new topics. WikiPolicy nowhere mentions that sources may be dismissed because they have already been discussed in the past.

c)SandyGeorgia's repeated mention of off-wiki canvassing and of Zaraeph has no bearing on the issues i present here, and serves only to besmirch my good-faith. She has presented no proof that I have engaged in off-wiki canvassing, have been off-wiki canvassed, or that I am a user avoiding a ban (I am none of those things.)

These assertions are unfounded, untrue and ultimately irrelevant. Sitadel (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sitadel, you are misreading my post; please assume good faith. Readers unfamiliar with the situation could have been left with the impression from the previous post that you are Zeraeph; I clarified for your protection and specifically to avoid your name being besmirched. I have not said you canvassed or that you are avoiding a ban; I have said you brought back (verbatim, I believe) text that is spread across three off-Wiki sites. That this article suffers because of off-Wiki canvassing can't be ignored, and is a legitimate ANI issue (content disputes aren't usually in ANI territory). And every point/source that you raised was discussed on talk, addressed, dealt with and even incorporated in one case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

assume good faith ? I did not bring those sources 'back' from 3 off-wiki sites, that list was pulled from the Talk archives of that article right here on wikipedia. If I had, it wouldn't matter. Sources are sources. They do not become invalidated by appearing elsewhere, nor by previous discussion. This speculation on your part is untrue, Ad hominem and irrelevant. Please find an appropriate forum in which to discuss them.

I'd like to remind the spectator that all of this was brought on by my introduction of three well-sourced sentences and a POV tag. Sitadel (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am completely indifferent to your real life identity, but I am interested in your previous wiki-identities because (as in the case of Zeraeph) some people, not accounts but people, have been banned from editing wikipedia; it is a person that is banned, not an account, which is why sockpuppeting is considered a bad thing. I would say that this is a polysyllabic discussion of every single source you ressurected from the archive. Sources can be dismissed now, if they were dismissed previously and no new reasons have arisen to reconsider them. They were rejected now for the same reasons they were rejected in the past. The problem isn't new people bringing up new points, it's new people (possibly, I've still not had confirmed or denied if Sitadel was one of the individuals who brought up these points in the past, like User:CeilingCrash or User:Species8471 or any of the various anon IPs who were present in past discussions of this issue) bringing up the same points. Sandy's saying that someone is engaging in off-wiki canvassing, and that is why we may expect multiple people coming to the page on this point. As I've said before, new information and studies that support your point will be added to the page, but right now there is little to verify that Asperger syndrome is accompanied by advantages (beyond the one already noted in the page, though it is a stretch as the source appears to discuss the autistic spectrum rather than Asperger specifically). Wikipedia includes verifiable information, not truth; right now the opinion that AS can be beneficial in some areas is not verifiable, though it may be true. WLU (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)The polysyllabic discussion, [27] mentioned above is one day old, at about the time i posted this notice. I didn't take part in that discussion, I was busy here. Now you're saying "it's been discussed, done deal." Honestly this is sophistry that fails the "laugh test." Sitadel (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki means quick. All responded very quickly to your comments, and it's not like the main or talk page is locked. Your comments will be read and responded to irrespective of when they are made. The basic failing on all accounts is that there is no reason per the sources available to support your position. It's a basic failing, which you can reply on a study-by-study basis, or you can provide more sources, but please keep in mind why the previous ones were rejected. WLU (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wikipedia

am i editing wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ?kjdfng83 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If you would like to play with Wikipedia, feel free to edit the sandbox. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that this is somehow related to this edit [28] who is telling these newbies (assuming it isn't the same user that has been lost all this time) to post here to check if they are able to edit? - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is definite similarity between this user's post, and the one above, but assuming good faith i have given ?kjdfng83 a welcome note, plus a message about their username, which seems inappropriate--Jac16888 (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

who are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ?kjdfng83 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A garden variety Wiki admin, who are you? - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And I heard Roger Daltry's voice in my head. Maybe I should get to sleep. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Or just stop watching CSI--Jac16888 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  :O

Seeing teh dramaz around here, and loving the title of the above section. What this place needs is the following suggestion;

Attention everyone. Go edit an article.

Regards, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something? GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 08:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[29] Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Odd page creation

Not sure where this should be asked, but it seems that IPs can create anything in the talk namespace. Is this an intentional feature of the MediaWiki software? GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 08:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's not perfect, but it is there because they should be allowed to comment if there is no such comment to begin with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, that clears that up. I was seriously confused about the page creation. Note that the editor who created the (now-deleted) page might need to be warned, as he/she seems to be using these talkpages to create a good deal of Harry Potter "plot" and "ending" pages. Thanks, GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 09:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look into it now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've given the IP a warning not to continue these activities.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible return of indef. blocked user Lysdexia?

A user (Dacium) posted a notice here regarding IP 68.127.228.207, who he/she suspects is the indefinitely blocked Lysdexia. Checking through the contribution list, that IP has signed comments with the name "Lysdexia" at least twice (here and here), and seems to have a similar pattern to Lysdexia. I've filed a sockpuppet report as well. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation

We have a new user who seems to be intent on a hackjob insertion of a non-notable event about this company: see [30]. As I am much believe this user might violate 3RR to reinsert it, I bring it here. I am tempted to break 3RR myself - this doesn't strictly count as BLP, but it follows the spirit of BLP, and I do believe WP:IAR may suffice. Someone please roll this user back and block if this continues.
PS. It appears this user has edit warred over this before, and has used his/her IP to add it: User:24.160.255.128, User: 69.210.145.72. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Already warned, one more revert will bring it to 3RR. I would probably consider reverting him as reverting simple vandalism and therefore exempt. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal?

User Trivialist (contributions) deleted a section unnecessarily in an article I monitor. He has made many contributions in a short time. It looks as though most of his contributions are suspect, though I am at work and cannot follow up at the moment. This is either a "self opinionated hacker" or a case of subtle vandalism. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

They've been here since September and have no warnings on the talk page, so this seems one off - you should ask the user on their talk page before bringing it here though — alex.muller (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Mike0001

On February 5th, User talk:Mike0001 edited the Rough Collie article by adding some NPOV remarks, an image of his pet collie, and a spam link. I reverted the changes and left him a level 1 NPOV warning. The next day, he put back the image again[31], which was again removed as it did not comply with WP:IMAGE (doesn't illustrate the text) and the article is far too short to support anymore images. Two days later (i.e. today), Mike reverted that removal, as well as edits in between calling it "vandalism"[32]. I undid again, and apparently he has decided that he is going to edit war over the issue. We have been back and forth for almost an hour, with him not only trying to readd the picture, as well as breaking the article in attempts to denote a whole paragraph as needing citations. In readding the picture, he also reuploaded it (first as Image:Shadow Rough Collie.JPG then as Image:Lamtara Golden Spritzer.jpg), seemingly in an attempt to disguise that it is a picture of his pet collie. I've attempted discussing the issue with him on his talk page, after leaving another warning, but he continues to just put it back and put it back.talk page diff, since he's since erased all messages I finally left him a 3RR warning (which he'd long since violated), and he responded by leaving me two.[33][34] He also seems to be engaging in edit disputes on other articles including Faust (History), Boiling to death(History), and List of nontheists (History) among others (a quick look at his contribs show quite a few, but these are some of the most recent). Anyone undoing his NPOV, unsourced, and often blatantly wrong edits is apparently a vandal.

At this point, my temper is too high to keep dealing with him, and in undoing his mess, I've also gone past the 3RR mark, so I'm asking for admin intervention. While I was working on this report, the was been protected, to a previous bad version, by another admin. As soon as the protection is gone, I'm sure Mike will continue his campaign, and meanwhile he will continue to cause problems on other articles. Collectonian (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

merged from other thread. Black Kite 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User Collectonium seems to think that he is the only person allowed to edit the Rough Collie. This is not WP policy! Also Lamtara Golden Spritzer is registered, has a pedigree, and is called Shadow by his family!

All the edits I make here and elsewhere are well justified. I am a retired academic! NOT a vandal. Mike0001 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the dispute seems to be about the inclusion of Image:Lamtara_Golden_Spritzer.jpg in that article, and is referring to User:Collectonian - I fixed the spelling and added a link in the header. —Random832 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be an actual report, or a response to my report two up from this? Of the latter, can it be moved up to keep the conversation in one place. Collectonian (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 207.191.191.20

I'm copying this report from AIV, as it's not current or ongoing vandalism, but should probably receive a response. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

207.191.191.20 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) Yes, this may seem unusual, but I am reporting myself. This IP address is the universal IP address for the Apple AirPort system for the laptops of an elementary school. As you can see from this IP's talk page or this IP's contribution page that any edits made by this IP are either nonsense or, more commonly, random acts of vandalism. This IP has already been blocked twice, as well as many warnings. I am requesting that this IP address be blocked from editing indefinitely. 207.191.191.20 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding comment was added at 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 3 months. I hate indefinite blocks of IPs, but I think track record combined with the request justifies a block longer than 72 hours. I was in the process of so doing before the report got moved here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Anthon01

(Moved from WP:AN) east.718 at 21:43, February 2, 2008

It appears that this user is being subjected to remedies under the homeopathy probation, but may not have been informed of that probation and so not may not know that remedies could be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. Perhaps an independent admin can take a look? —Whig (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Without comment: [35] R. Baley (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting, why was Anthon01 removed from that list? —Whig (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

East. [36] Anthon01 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That makes sense. [37] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the second action against me in 2 days. Why? Anthon01 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was properly notified, but more to the point, the reason given for the block is 'stonewalling'.... What is 'stonewalling' in this context and are there diffs that demonstrate this supposed behavior? I know what stonewalling is, in a general sense, but I don't know how it substantively differs from 'continuing to disagree'. Disagree with whom? The consensus? Obviously there IS no consensus, any way but even if there were, disagreeing about it is not disruptive in and of itself. I thought you were allowed to express your disagreement with the consensus (if there is one), as long as you don't engage in disruptive editing. Is there a policy or guideline that describes the parameters of 'stonewalling'? I don't want to accidently violate a guideline or policy that I may not have heard of. Dlabtot (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Probationary sanctions were imposed by an uninvolved admin (see here), who also implied there were some checkuser findings being sorted out. Those sanctions can be appealed here, if that's Anthon01's intent, in which case I'd suggest briefly making a case and allowing input from other uninvolved admins. You could also ask the admin placing the sanction for specifics if that's your concern. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The stated reason for the block is "stonewalling". Was that accurate? or was he blocked for some other reason? What was that reason? Someone's suspicions? Something that was implied? What is the specific reason he was blocked? Dlabtot (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile the edit warring rages on with nary a warning or block or ban in sight, except me. And guess what. I haven't touch the article at all. By an admin who has express his disdain for alternative medicine. Anthon01 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Presenting a case? How long will the case stay open? Will Guy come by and take another swipe at me trying reveal my indentity an accusing me of being a meat puppet and commanding to leave, as he repeatedly does? Anthon01 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So far, you're not making a very persuasive case. MastCell ^Talk 19:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering I just caught you using a half dozen accounts to edit war for the past six months across multiple pseudoscience-related articles and had the results verified via checkuser, the more germane question seems to be if you can evade a block. east.718 at 20:02, February 2, 2008

Half dozen accounts? Please read the checkuser account carefully. You're making alot of unfair accusations here. You are wrong. Ask FT2 if I have a half dozen accounts. You should do you homework before accusing me. Anthon01 (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again wrong. Will I be given enough for me to comment and other admins to comment? Anthon01 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your comment on the Checkuser report here? Why is it wrong? Lawrence § t/e 20:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a relevant link .[38] Quack Guru 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

East. I know you have you work cut out for you. This problem is a big one but you've pointed your adminstrative arrow in the wrong direction. Note as I have left the problem has gotten worse. Just consider that I may be a moderating force instead of an extremist. I have reached consensus with a number of editors including Jim Butler, Art Carlson and Scientizzle and Arthur Rubin. So far I am unimpressed by your efforts in this case. Your block of JacobLad is unimpressive. [39] Used once for 1.5 hours and never never used again. Please delete as you can see I have no need for it. Anthon01 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I will defend this on my talk page. And let me say it here before Guy comes through for his drive-by accusation. I have absolutely `nothing to do with Ilena. Anthon01 (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

While there was strong suspicion in the beginning that Anthon01 might be Anthony Zaffuto, the partner of User:Ilena, I no longer believe this to be the case and think that no one should raise this accusation against him. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I will comment here once I have completed my defense there. Anthon01 (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have sent my explanation to FT2 and am awaiting his reply. Anthon01 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

(copy from my talk page) You learn mostly by floating around WP. I notice from reading talk pages that some editors have more than one account. So early on in my experience here, I decided to try it as experiment. I used JacobLad on one day and one day only.[40] I wasn't sure what the point was and didn't know there was a problem with doing until after. I still don't know what the rules really are because I see others talk about openly on there talk pages. Anyway I decided it didn't interest me and haven't used it again since that day.

Bottom line is, with one exception on 1 day, I use one account and one account only, that is Anthon01. FT2 can confim that.

I have a computer at home, a computer at the office, a computer at the library. My computer at the office is static. My home computer is mostly static (cable service). There is a time limit on how long you can stay inactive before you are automatically logged out by WP servers. More in a momment. Anthon01 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

FT2: I think I can prove to you that I didn't willfully evade a ban, but I will have to do it at least partially by email because it involves discussing IP addresses. Are you willing to do that? Anthon01 (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So I use different computers for convenience. FT2 can confirm that when I login using all those different IPs, I alway use the same account. I think in the last 2 months I have posted a message using an IP only twice, both times erroneously as I didn't notice that I had been logged out by the WP server. I'm sure all of you can relate to that. I was blocked only once, back at the beginning of December I think. FT2 can confirm that the IPs he has found were not used during that time. Anthon01 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

...

I have no idea whether the libraries computer are static or not. I have only posted from there rarely. Why do I post from there? I have access to full-text journals. SO I can read the whole article before commenting. Could you imagine how much better WP could be if we all had acces to full text instead of depending on an Abstract? Anyway, thats the reasons for all the different IPs. Now East718 has accused me of having half a dozen different accounts. Wrong. Please read checkuser over. FT2 can confirm that. More to come ... Anthon01 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(End of copy from my talk page) Anthon01 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Commenting purely on the sock concerns (and not on any other article editing matters): Quick summary - The information available supports AGF on the sock concerns, with lessons hopefully learned about the perils of not logging in, that no harm was done with the Jacoblad account, and no malice seems to have been intended. The editing both logged in and logged out, and under multiple IPs (home, work etc) was problematic and might have led to further sock concerns, but hopefully Anthon will avoid that in future. I have taken steps in private to address that. (My comment). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While Anthon01 may appeal to some few collaborative situations with some editors (a couple of whom share his POV on many alternative medicine matters), he is pretty much constantly in conflict with editors who are scientific skeptics and supporters of mainstream POV. Those conflicts cannot be ignored or undone by a few favorable situations when editors of his own persuasion support him. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Fyslee: I will be commenting a little later today. Anthon01 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a recent example where consensus is reached with mainstream editors, and not editors of [my] own persuasion.[41] I will find another. Anthon01 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I still want to know what 'stonewalling' is, precisely, and see the diffs in which User:Anthon01 engaged in this behavior. Dlabtot (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise how can I defend myself properly. Anthon01 (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Background info regarding improper use of a sock by Anthon01

In contrast to Anthon01's statement above, I find the actions of Anthon01 while using his sock puppet, JacobLad, quite "impressive" and a significant violation of policy here. Talk about a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny! I noticed the edits by JacobLad at the time because they occurred at a very opportune time for Anthon01. Why? Because at that exact time period (minutes) we were engaged in a very heated discussion (with Anthon01 being backed up by Levine2112, both of whom are very strong advocates of chiropractic, a competing profession) about edits that made quite false implications about my own profession of Physical Therapy.

This diff is the last edit in the section where the discussion can be found, so the whole section can be read on that page. I tried to improve the false phrase by a rewording and the introduction of very good sources. They continually reverted it. You will notice that the List still fails to contain a single mention of chiropractic in any manner, even though numerous attempts have been made, even with good sources, to include its pseudoscientific aspects (vertebral subluxation, Innate Intelligence, vitalism). This situation is caused mainly by the efforts of Levine2112, who claims to be a "chiropractic advocate" and has admitted he is here "to protect chiropractic's reputation." [42] The edit history of the List shows this charge to be true. This type of deletionism of well sourced inclusions needs to be stopped. It is disruptive protectionism and violates NPOV policy. When Anthon01 arrived, they became a tag team to protect chiropractic.

By editing the Physical Therapy article in the manner which he did, Anthon01 was effectively taking revenge by attempting to smear my profession. He was trying to do it at the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, and then he used a sock puppet to do it at the PT article itself. He also edited it using his Anthon01 username, in cooperation with Levine2112.

It is important to note that I respect NPOV, even when it goes against me and even when it means the addition of nonsense, as long as it is encyclopedic and properly sourced. That is why I didn't revert his additions or edit war with him and Levine2112, since the additions were properly sourced and to some degree true. Whether they are a notable POV is another matter, since the same can be said of some aspects in most mainstream medical professions, and most aspects of all alternative medicine. It is an especially ironic situation, considering it is an example of the Two wrongs make a right logical fallacy being used by two believers in alternative medicine and pseudoscience. They delete obviously good sources that criticize their favorite profession, and then attack a mainstream profession in revenge.

All of mainstream medicine has issues of this type because we are working with inherited techniques that seem to work, but are sometimes uncertain. Fortunately they are dumped if proven to be ineffective. That last part isn't mentioned by them in their edits there.... Within alternative medicine, and to a large degree chiropractic, this is not the case. Applied Kinesiology is itself a notable example of a pseudoscience being practiced by a rather large number of chiropractors. It is also an article which Anthon01 tried to dominate when he arrived here.

What should be done about this misuse of a sock puppet to edit disruptively (even when using good sources) is up to admins to decide. It was definitely not a collaborative situation. Just because it happened some time ago, doesn't mean it should go unpunished. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Fyslee: I will be commenting a little later today. Anthon01 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This definitely puts the use of the sock, together with copious volumes of other disruptive activites on the part of Anthon01, in a new light. Thanks Fyslee.--Filll (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive? Prove it! Anthon01 (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: (1) are you not under some administrative restriction now? (2) your posts here speak for themselves. I rest my case.--Filll (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well consider me ignorant. I am under no admin restriction. Please clarify. Please consider WP is very new to me, and certainly this process of adminstrative review is. Anthon01 (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll: Re: copious volumes of other disruptive activites. Prove it. This is hyperbole on your part. Anthon01 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The current situation is a bit too dangerous for me to engage in this sort of provocative and confrontational activity. I leave it to the admins who have already dealt with you and I suspect might deal with you further in the future if an attitude and behavior shift is not imminent. I hope so.--Filll (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider striking out some of your inflammatory comments? Anthon01 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully decline to do so, until such time as I am informed by some authority that this was a mistake or has been rescinded, and Fyslee informs me that he was mistaken. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee: This is mostly a rant. Theres is absolutely no need to respond to most of what you have written here as it belongs on a talk page. If you would like we can take it to your or my page, or a talk page if you find that more appropriate. If there is a specific violation policy that you think I should be penalized for then state it and I will respond. Anthon01 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee: Please provide diffs. Anthon01 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is it worth having this user around?

Can anyone point to one positive contribution this user has made? If not, should we consider, perhaps, a community ban? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this editor actually do any editing? While communication is an important part of the wikipedia process, it has to be balanced with contributions to our primary purpose - that of creating an ecyclopedia. I am not seeing much evidence of this balance. I think before a community ban, the editor should be encouraged to spend some time doing some editing... --Fredrick day (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01 has done sufficient editing for the encouragement to be unnecessary. SA's point stands. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a fair point, sadly. The sheer tendentiousness by which he has handled his "defence" here does not suggest future promise, either. Orderinchaos 11:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The reaction by his opponents to requests for diffs to substantiate the accusation of "stonewalling" (such requests have been made three times above and twice below by User:Dlabtot and twice above by User:Anthon01, and answered zero times) can, ironically enough (unless I've missed something) be reasonably characterized as stonewalling. —Random832 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave a diff. Did you miss it? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diffs of all kinds of problematic edits

• [43] Falsely claiming lack of consensus.
• [44] Falsely claiming lack of consensus.
• [45] Disregarding a study to suit his POV.
• [46] Adding a red herring comment to further his disregard.
• [47] Adding emotive language to further insult the person offering the study.
• [48] Wikilawyering to push his POV.
• [49] Jumping to conclusions about how a review's "determination" will affect future research (as if that's Wikipedia' concern).
• [50] More Wikilawyering pretending that editors who are perhaps more steeped in NPOV than any other part of the encyclopedia don't understand it.
• [51] Discounting a survey based on raw numbers rather than considering the sampling (a common tactic of POV-pushers who wish to denounce a less-than-flattering survey).
• [52] Quixotic comment: perhaps meant to convey distrust of a source?
• [53] Pure stonewalling.
• [54] Ad hominem dismissal of a reliable source.

I could keep going, but will spare the reader. Just go through his contributions. It's not hard to see that this user does not so much disrupt discussions as much as he destroys them with questionable rhetoric and ridiculous repetition.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing diffs. I will review them and comment later. Anthon01 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: Why did you feel you needed to comment on each the diffs? If they're so damning, shouldn't they speak for themselves? Anthon01 (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is User:ScienceApologist, one of the main combatants in this WP:BATTLE, who is providing this 'evidence', rather than User:East718, the blocking admin... Dlabtot (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have personally checked all of the diffs that ScienceApologist supplied. None of them seem remotely problematic to me, all of them seem perfectly appropriate. The last one, which ScienceApologist characterized as "Ad hominem dismissal of a reliable source" is particularly contrary to the fact that Quackwatch has been found to be an unreliable and partisan source by the Arbitration committee. —Whig (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Whig, we know that you are not neutral on this issue. Please refrain from lobbying. I am unsure why East718 has not commented. The continued battling here is not helpful. Please send an email to East718 asking for a response, Anthon01. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 22:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be neutral on this issue, however. I am correct in pointing out counterfactual descriptions of diffs if nobody else will do so, as Anthon01 is entitled to have someone point that out. —Whig (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've sent him an email. ScienceApologist isn't neutral either as we are often on opposite sides of an issue. Anthon01 (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

East.718 has not been online on 5 Feb, and only made one edit on 4 Feb. It's likely that he hasn't seen this thread. Horologium (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the statement that QW was found not to be a WP:RS was clarified to state that some QW pages are not reliable. Whig's statement above qualifies as censored tendentious. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How so? Do you mean that incorrect statements are qualified as tendentious. Anthon01 (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean that Whig's statement is a misinterpretation of the ArbComm ruling as clarified. As it's being used in an edit war, that makes it tendentious. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a link to the ArbComm ruling? Anthon01 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Try here. Those QW links were ruled to be unreliable, but further discussion on WP:AE led to modifications not reflected in that ArbComm ruling. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What am I suppose to do with WP:AE link your provided? My question is serious. Is there an effective way to search through past AE decisions to locate QW related decisions? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I need to express concern that Jehochman has asked Whig to refrain from lobbying because Whig is not "neutral" on this case. However, neither is Jehochman or anyone else here (including myself)...and because there are a lot more people here who have strong POV against homeopathy and Anthon01, the result is obvious and predictable. I sincerely hope that all penalties against Anthon01 be voided until an independent and/or outside group analyse the situation. Anthon01 has continually be a gentleman, but he has also had a backbone, and many of us have continually seen an active effort to mute people who express a pro-homeopathy point of view. Considering all of the strongly worded antagonistic and even offensive statements that exist in many articles related to homeopathy, the individuals who try to provide some balance by providing RS, V, and notable references that just happen to provide a positive view of homeopathy are often harrassed, have their contributions deleted completely (not just partially), and have had efforts like this one to mute them. Dana Ullman ^Talk 07:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Still no response from East718. Its been 3 days. Anthon01 (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:VoABot II

User:VoABot II just reverted my edits to Jerry Hall where I added several references substantiating that Jerry Hall and Grace Jones shared an apartment together. This was hardly spam! 64.122.14.55 (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A blog is not a reliable source. bibliomaniac15 23:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I attempted to add three references because none of them were particularly strong. Only one was a blog. But all the references were removed in the revert. 64.122.14.55 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So try re-adding the references that weren't blogs. A bot can't be perfect. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can try adding them one at a time using {{cite web}}. Ones that don't make it can be added to the article's talk page. OTOH, a blog, another wiki, and one person's report are hardly reliable sources.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not advocating bots could be perfect but that it should be mended as I have obviously found a defect. I am well aware my citations are far from the most reliable, however, methinks that is better than nothing there (the point is, everyone is welcome to add content and I was trying to exercise my ability by contributing; I was not trying to deface by adding links for purposes of promoting such sites). The suggestions about adding one citation at a time and adding the remainder to the talk page is a good interim workaround. 64.122.14.55 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NiggardlyNorm

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

Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

Carlossuarez46 blocked NiggardlyNorm as a result of the latter's comments to the former at User_talk:Carlossuarez46#Major_Garrett_deletion. Norm has requested an unblock and I'm inclined to grant it as an obviously unjustifiable block. Since Carlos appears to have logged off for the evening, I wanted to bring it here before taking any action. Any objections to removing the block? --B (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only do I support the unblock, I also support and early close at AfD for the bad faith nomination of the article for deletion, so that after NN returns, he can build the article nicely. ThuranX (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I revised the article under question somewhat with a new reference and section division. I hope that helps! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not a bad-faith nom. The article was one sentence long, and it wasn't even a particularly good sentence. The nominator speedied, the article was re-created, so he took it to AFD. He shouldn't have blocked an editor for personal attacks when he was the subject of the attacks, but let's not go overboard in assuming bad faith, please. -- Vary | Talk 05:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominated, then immediately blocks the author under the most specious of reasoning? That IS bad faith. ThuranX (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI to anyone reading this, I've unblocked him. We can leave this up here a little while longer in case anyone else has something to say about it or the blocking admin wants to comment. --B (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Does anyone here know what the word Niggardly means? I don't think KikieKate or ChinkyChuck would be acceptable either. Charles Stewart (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone in the Wikimedia universe does. ;) <-- extraordinarily rare emoticon placed there because, in my estimation, to fail to do so would be a violation of WP:CIVIL. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Niggardly" means "miserly", but, some are sensitive to the use of this word [55]. Cla68 (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We even have our own article about it: Controversies about the word "niggardly". Natalie (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• So, apparently some people feel that calling a person a bot is OK, and that denial of one's humanity is not problematic, perhaps more especially from someone who has deliberately chosen a name that - while technically not a slur - is clearly meant to stir up emotions, just like I know that Spic & Span is a cleanser and fag is a cigarette, so who have called me those must be complimenting my cleanliness and my similarity to a cigarette. Yeah, right. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Except that his name isn't a racial slur. The mayor of Washington fired someone for using it several years back and was roundly criticized by basically everyone in the media who speaks the English language. This word and the racial slur are completely unrelated in their derivation. If he were editing articles about racial issues ... ok ... that would strain the ability to assume good faith ... but he isn't. As for his conduct, if there was anything out of line, responding with a template only inflamed the situation. --B (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As I said: Technically not a slur, but calculated to cause controversy. We have a username policy that is not limited to actual racial slurs, but includes names calculated to disrupt. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To borrow an example from Radley Balko, what next: we ban usernames with "chicanery" in them so that no Chicanos take offense? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• WP:AGF: people aren't under obligation to anticipate every misconstruction of their username. Niggardly is a legitimate word in polite discussion among people who know their etymology. Durova^Charge! 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless of its similarity to a racial slur, use of the word is obviously and needlessly provocative. Coupled with an abrasive tone, it's not irrational for another editor to have their guard up when dealing with this user. The Major Garrett AfD nomination was entirely appropriate, and the reaction by Norm was a little more aggressive and confrontational than it needed to be. Did Carlossuarez46 overreact? Maybe, but nothing that deserves any kind of sanction. Torc2 (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to Shel Silverstein

Shel Silverstein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Please see the page history. A number of IP addresses, all the same except for the last digit, have been tag-teaming to destroy this article. Please semiprotect the article and block every one of these IP addresses for 24 to 48 hours. It is hard to assume good faith in the face of a concentrated, intentional attack. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• 199.216.110.25 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 199.216.110.26 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 199.216.110.27 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, those IPs resolve to the Government of Alberta. Corvus cornix_talk 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And don't leave off 199.216.110.29 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log). Corvus cornix_talk 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 72 hours. I'm unconvinced that the IP's need blocking, as their recent vandalism is restricted to the one article. Caknuck (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of neutrality tags on disputed statement on Canada

User Quizimodo: has removed {{dubious}} tag place by me from Canada page. Similar incidents on Dominion page have led to page being locked. The rules about this and edit warring have been explained to him. I don't want this happening on Canada page. References:

• Talk:Dominion#Justification_for_tags
• Editor views on subject
• "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."NPOV disputes

--soulscanner (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner user has been wholly disruptive and uncooperative since Sep., when this editor advocated for one position on the 'Canada' talk page regarding Canada's status/entitlement as a 'dominion' only to reneg and hyper-react (initiating a number of confusing polls), use substandard references as a crutch for his point of view, and then withdrawing from the discussion. A conciliation was arrived at 'Canada' in this editor's absence, which this editor now has a challenge with. As well, this disruptive editor has barely discussed the issue on the 'Dominion' talk page 9nly doing so after repeated requests), adding 'dubious' and 'neutrality' tags to long-standing and sourced content without discussion or claiming that the references do not support the content (which is blatantly false), while producing little evidence to counter them, and threatening and then submitting a request for arbitration (without seeking other modes of dispute resolution first), only to withdraw it a short time later. He has since brought his dispute to the 'Canada' article, with the addition of tags on few notions which said editor continues to disagree with despite stability and evidence otherwise.

This is rather untenable. So, I hereby request that the 'Canada' article be locked, and/or that an administrator scrutinise Soulscanner and possibly sanction said editor for continuous disruptive behaviour. Quizimodo (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My observation is that Quizimodo is unwilling to accept any sort of other view on this matter, and is removing and content that is not to his liking. He has reverted the tag three times already today. There is no hurt in having that tag on the content until the dispute is resolved. The reason the content is long-lasting, is because Quizimodo and other editors have edit-warred in the past, removing content, until other editors, including myself, just got frustrated and left the discussion. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not removing any content, only the disruptive tags which are being placed. Alternatively, there is 'no hurt' in discussing topics on relevant talk pages first and not acting as precipitously as Soulscanner has: his abortive RfA is but one example of this and is revealing of ongoing disruption. You and Soulscanner have also had plenty of time to contest relevant content, but have been unwilling or unable to or merely resort to confused polemics without cited backing. I am willing to compromise -- for example, I suggested a number of conciliatory options on the 'Canada' page during the last scrum, including the one regarding Canada being noted as a 'semi-autonomous polity' upfront, which Soulscanner has again taken issue with -- but the intransigence of these antagonistic editors (including the responder) makes this increasingly difficult. And, Wikipedia is not your mother: if you can't take the heat, you don't belong in the kitchen. Quizimodo (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not spent any time (over the past three months) on this specifically because of your disruptive behaviour, which consistently reverts any edit which is not too your liking. I am not going to get into a war about this, but your behaviour is just as disruptive if not more than Soulscanner's. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No comment. Quizimodo (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This diff is of interest. Relata refero (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify here for the ease of others' comprehension: I've not done what Soulscanner has accused me of. This trend of blaming me for collusion with another editor so as to suppress Soulscanner continues from his virulent claims yesterday - with notices [56] and reports a plenty - that I intentionally vandalised his retaliatory 3RR report against me. User:Spartaz blocked him for harrassing me, but then reneged on his decision. I initially thought Soulscanner harmless, but now I think Spartaz, or someone else, should reconsider the unblock on Soulscanner. --G2bambino (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Later addition: I see now he's clarified that I did indeed not remove the tags he speaks of. Still, I find this constant need to follow him and make sure he isn't involving me in something I'm not party to increasingly annoying. --G2bambino (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the word you are looking for is reversed not reneged. (I withdrew the block in favour of a warning). I would appreciate another admin reviewing whether or not this ongoing behaviour complained of by G2bambino is harrassing. Having made a right of a prat of myself yesterday I don't think I have the credibility to intervene in this situation further so I won't be blocking anyone involved in this right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems you're right; I only meant reversed. --G2bambino (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend this Dominion dispute be resolved by Mediation. Anything to put this behind us. My major concern in all of this? Article stability (surprise, surprise). GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The incident was part of a misunderstanding. I've apologized for my part in that. The relevant administrators would attest to the fact that neither you, me, or the administrators came out looking good in that one. Keep in mind that you conjured up fanciful conspiracy theories about my motivations too. The moral of the story is to assume good faith at all times. The relevant question here is whether there is a dispute about the terminology used in the lead. I think there is. Leave the personal attacks alone and assume good faith. I applaud that you uphold my right to put the tag on there. Lets leave it there and work it out on the Dominion page with a mediator. --soulscanner (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet, despite your reminders of good faith yesterday, you went and violated them again today with another spread of false claims against me, not 24 hours after the last. What would you like me to say? --G2bambino (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I corrected this, explained it, and apologized for it. You can at least acknowledge that. I'm not going to rehash your imperfections from yesterday. This isn't about assassinating someones credibility. It's about removing neutrality tags. --soulscanner (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not as dismissive as you. --G2bambino (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This situation was recently declined/withdrawn at Requests for arbitration but with the observation that it needed for uninvolved administrators to keep an eye on the page and for mediation or other dispute resolution to be pursued. It would be appreciated if someone could follow up on this so the situation doesn't worsen any further. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incarna Gaming Network / underconstruction template

Incarna Gaming Network has just been created and has been tagged with the 'underconstruction' template which places the the following text :-

This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping.

However, you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. Please view the edit history should you wish to contact the person who placed this template. If this article has not been edited in several days please remove this template. Please don't tag with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days. (emphasis mine) While actively editing, consider adding {{inuse}} to reduce edit conflicts.

I'm unhappy with the wording on this template - should templates have wording that suggests that an article cannot be tagged for deletion just because the template is on the article? Exxolon (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

While I also disagree with the line "Please don't tag with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days" (If someone needs that much time, the article should be created in userspace), this is a discussion that should probably take place at Template talk:Underconstruction. — Satori Son 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense for me. Create a non-notable article with this template, knowing that without it it will get speedy deleted, and let the non-notable content stick around long enough for it to be picked up by Google so that it perpetuates throughout the Internet before getting deleted here. Corvus cornix_talk 21:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly thinking about tagging it for speedy deletion anyway, considering the only source that this even exists is its own website. Corvus cornix_talk 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold, ignore the rules and mark it for CSD myself. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also been bold and removed "Please don't tag with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days." from the template text. The fact that an article is under construction does not exempt it from our deletion criteria and the template should not imply that. Exxolon (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case I suggest you also reword WP:YFA. Taemyr (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

AIV has a backlog over half an hour old. Corvus cornix_talk 00:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD problem

I non-admin closed this AfD because the article had been speedied (for the second time today) by an admin. The article was, however, recreated in short order, and has once again been tagged for speedy deletion. What's the best thing to do in such a situation? The article has, I think, no chance of surviving an AfD, but it doesn't really fall under the letter of CSD A7—the rationale for its speedies—either. My first thought was to reopen the AfD so that it could be deleted in such a way that recreations would be speediable, but I thought I'd ask here first. Deor (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend undoing your AfD close and re-noming it for AfD, then let it run its course. If it gets deleted at the end of the five day period, then gets recreated, it can be speedied for db-repost. Corvus cornix_talk 00:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's apparently been speedied once again, and salted this time, so I guess there's no further problem. Thanks. Deor (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What?? Why did we delete this?? There was clearly notability in the line: "It was freezen cold" on the list of reasons it is special/different/notable. Metros (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Then go to WP:DRV. Otherwise no further admin action needed. —Kurykh 00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he was being facetious ;) FCYTravis (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Another good example of why we need </sarcasm> markup. — Satori Son 02:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Codyfinkedrholarhan

I just found Codyfinkedrholarhan (talk · contribs) which I assume is a sockpuppet of Codyfinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) but I'm just quitting for the evening and don't have time to follow up. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef: it does help a little when they admit it; fish in a barrel. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] yo

turn this robot off. it's being very disruptive to my work. it takes a lot of time as it is to accomplish all that i do, as the heir to the Aqua_Teen 52 throne, and i cannot live with this robot being all paranoid and disruptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqua teen 54 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of being disruptive to your work: [57]. Tell Frylock we all said "hey"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mike0001

On February 5th, User:Mike0001 edited the Rough Collie article by adding some NPOV remarks, an image of his pet collie, and a spam link. I reverted the changes and left him a level 1 NPOV warning. The next day, he put back the image again[58], which was again removed as it did not comply with WP:IMAGE (doesn't illustrate the text) and the article is far too short to support anymore images. Two days later (i.e. today), Mike reverted that removal, as well as edits in between calling it "vandalism"[59]. I undid again, and apparently he has decided that he is going to edit war over the issue. We have been back and forth for almost an hour, with him not only trying to readd the picture, as well as breaking the article in attempts to denote a whole paragraph as needing citations. In readding the picture, he also reuploaded it (first as Image:Shadow Rough Collie.JPG then as Image:Lamtara Golden Spritzer.jpg), seemingly in an attempt to disguise that it is a picture of his pet collie. I've attempted discussing the issue with him on his talk page, after leaving another warning, but he continues to just put it back and put it back.talk page diff, since he's since erased all messages I finally left him a 3RR warning (which he'd long since violated), and he responded by leaving me two.[60][61] He also seems to be engaging in edit disputes on other articles including Faust (History), Boiling to death(History), and List of nontheists (History) among others (a quick look at his contribs show quite a few, but these are some of the most recent). Anyone undoing his NPOV, unsourced, and often blatantly wrong edits is apparently a vandal.

At this point, my temper is too high to keep dealing with him, and in undoing his mess, I've also gone past the 3RR mark, so I'm asking for admin intervention. While I was working on this report, the was been protected, to a previous bad version, by another admin. As soon as the protection is gone, I'm sure Mike will continue his campaign, and meanwhile he will continue to cause problems on other articles. Collectonian (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

merged from other thread. Black Kite 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User Collectonium seems to think that he is the only person allowed to edit the Rough Collie. This is not WP policy! Also Lamtara Golden Spritzer is registered, has a pedigree, and is called Shadow by his family!

All the edits I make here and elsewhere are well justified. I am a retired academic! NOT a vandal. Mike0001 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the dispute seems to be about the inclusion of Image:Lamtara_Golden_Spritzer.jpg in that article, and is referring to User:Collectonian - I fixed the spelling and added a link in the header. —Random832 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be an actual report, or a response to my report two up from this? Of the latter, can it be moved up to keep the conversation in one place. Collectonian (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: restoring as there was no discussion and it was archived after only one day...

[edit] Incivility User:Calton

After two requests for civility,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calton#Civility http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=189856899

User:Calton persists in making increasingly uncivil remarks and unsubstantiated, if not boggling, accusations about various users, such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Telogen&diff=189873578&oldid=189867643.

His vitriol began shortly after I and User:Boodlesthecat reported User:Griot.

Thank you, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a new problem... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nor is this a new sockpuppet. It's obviously the return of an obsessive edit-warrior and self-promoter, the indefinitely blocked Telogen (talk · contribs) aka blocked-for-six-months 76.166.123.129 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) aka Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. Forum-shopping again for her crusade about the evilness of Griot and her perceived enemies. [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]. Oh, and this IP was itself blocked a month for sockpuppeting back in November. That part is obvious: the Checkuser is only to see if there's a connection between the IP -- which has a history of sockpuppeting -- and her new ally.

This IP also seems to make a lot of odd claims in hoping to make something stick, including the physically impossible -- unless she has evidence that cause-and-effect works backwards? --Calton | Talk 06:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

False accusations and acidic insults only serve to confirm User:Calton WP:CIVIL violations. In fact, I have no idea what this user is talking about. I started sharing this apartment in January, and the rest is mind-boggling to me. Someone named Jeanne and a User:Telogen, who User:Calton clearly defames and/or dislikes and apparently shares this with User:Griot, and User:Boodlesthecat, who has a solid history as a good editor and member of the community. Is this what Wikipedia is about? I thought we were an encyclopedia, building and sharing knowledge, not a vehicle for personal vendetta, political POV pushing and slanderous attacks. If I stand corrected, then Wikipedia is reduced to a shock blog, and I will not participate in that.

User:Calton is correct on one point. I do use Time Warner, the second largest ISP in the U.S. 4.1 million subscribers. Thank you for your attention, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=189912532. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I just see a duck going quack quack. Keep up the good work Calton. --Fredrick day (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. day, I hope that when check user reveals Calton's accusations are false, you'll be large enough to apologize. Supporting incivility, a clear violation of Wikipedia policy, is wrong. Your comments are disappointing. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The anon IP 76.87.47.110 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) has been blocked for six more months by Ryulong (talk · contribs), thus ending at least this bit of excess drama. --Calton | Talk 11:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeepers there's a boatload of socks on that IP. I'll check them all tonight, unless Ali beats me to it. :) Thatcher 15:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time out

Ms Spicuzza is a writer / reporter for the SF Weekly magazine, see [67], who contacted the Wikimedia foundation PR staff and has been talking to a number of Wikipedians.

She has a particular angle about a local story in San Francisco that she's interested in, yes, but she is a legitimate press contact as far as I know and the Foundation know. I talked to her on the phone for about 20 min a few weeks ago, as have a number of others.

If there is an abuse case going on here, please get REALLY REALLY SPECIFIC about what's going on and who is doing what - if it is not Ms Spicuzza (User:Marynega) then don't tar her with participation in it. If it is, please let me and the Foundation (Cary Bass and Sandy Ordonez Jay Walsh have been working with her) know asap. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be Jay Walsh rather than Sandy Ordonez. Thanks. Cary Bass ^demandez 00:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - We appear to have two different Ms Spicuzza's - User:Marynega is the one I am referring to, who I talked to on the phone, etc. I have no information regarding Jeanne Marie Spicuzza and wasn't initially aware that these were two separate people, I thought it was confusion over the name. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too sure that there are two Spicuzzas (Spicuzzi?). Over half a year ago, User:Telogen and sockpuppets, who probably belong to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Telogen, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Telogen, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanne Marie Spicuzza), were in a dispute with Calton and Griot at the Ralph Nader article.

Now, User:Marynega (Mary Spicuzza) wants to write an article about Griot [68], because his "name has come up quite a bit in [her] reporting" [69]? This seems quite odd, especially since User:Telogen has recently reappeared as User:76.87.47.110, restarted the edit wars on Ralph Nader, and started threads complaining about Calton and Griot (including this one). I hear ducks. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, User:Marynega left messages on the talk pages of 3 of the confirmed sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Telogen asking them to contact her. Another sock connected to this group is User:GridiotinSanFranciski, an obvious impersonator of Griot (and already blocked on that basis). Something strange is going on here. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to state that my run-ins with J.M. Spicuzza are only tangentially about Ralph Nader and my only connection with User:Griot is we both have been targeted by her: an "enemy of my enemy is my friend", perhaps. My original interest was her vanity bio and its related articles and edits -- an article which, BTW, I'd put on my watchlist and left alone for several months, waiting for something to happen before I finally nominated it voting on its deletion and others at AFD. Which she took very badly. [Altered original comment: man, my memory is slipping]

I'd also like to state that I don't think Mary Spicuzza is the same person as Jeanne Marie Spicuzza -- Mary has a record of being a bonafide reporter for an alt-weekly in San Francisco -- but I suspect that there's a HUGE conflict of interest going on here. --Calton | Talk 11:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pfistermeister

Can an admin take a look at the behaviour of User:Pfistermeister at the Hamlet (1996 film) page? Almost every contribution there seems to be a WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF & WP:NPA violation, including:

• twit
• This is *idiotic* and *sub-literate*
• Don't degrade the page by your amateurish hostility to anything you don;t know.
• Under-informed contributor degrading page.
• You reveal yourself to have a desperately inadequate knowledge of the sources, as well as distinctly poor reading skills. (Or do you have some kind of agenda? Perhaps you think this is 'your page'....?). and (same diff) Clearly you know nothing about any of this. You are out of your depth. You are an inept amateur degrading the page. Please stop.
• I have already shown that you have inadequate knowledge of this topic; your accusation that I have somehow contributed OR merely reinforces the impression and (same diff) I will not give way to an amateur who merely wants it deleted.

The user talk page suggests the user has a bit of a similar problem on other pages. I've given a warning of sorts here. AndyJones (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You forgot that a lot of those seem to violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. That's really arrogant edit summarizing, nad fairly arrogant editing, too. If he does any more at all, I'd support a block. ThuranX (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned as to civility; deferring to a more experienced user about OR and so on. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the interventions. I'll post back if there are further problems. AndyJones (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Further infractions, today:

• the difference between us is that *you* do actual damage to pages you *know nothing about* and (same diff) what you insultingly and cluelessly call 'my personal theories' and (same diff) Happy now, amateurs...?. I have given a further "warning" here. AndyJones (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pfistermeister's broken 3RR, and has clearly passed into the realms of WP:TE. He continues to assert that because HE is not wrong, the information belongs in the article. ThuranX (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Further violation of WP:NPA: You and your under-informed chums are applying a manifest double standard to my contributions on a page you seem to think is your personal property. AndyJones (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And another: Your antipathy to me is making you irrational and reckless. AndyJones (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contentious MFD, need admin eyes (about to end)

[edit] Grand Duchy of Avram

A couple of years ago we had a fellow edit warring on this article about a micronation, repeatedly inserting his own version of the article in place of versions produced by consensus editing. Today it appears that he, or a copycat, is back. See edits by Grandduke of (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Probably no action is merited yet, but going by previous experience he can be pretty persistent. --Tony Sidaway 12:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User making up episodes of Transformers: Animated

A User at 170.215.129.70 keeps making up the plots of episode of the Transformers: Animated TV series and adding them to pages talking about it. For insytance he would add things like "According to the synopsis for episode 10, "Contagious Slobber" Bumblebee gets a rash on his mouth and Ratchet, Prowl, and Bulkhead try to remember what the rash was made from." These episodes seem to be completely nonsense, not real, and every time I remove them he re-adds them. Mathewignash (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a return vandal. – Steel 14:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IOND University

The user over there is claiming that the content on the article is criminal because it hasn't been approved by IOND. They posted this link attesting to that: Here. They said the information is false, but the cites are from state or government or IOND themselves. At first I thought it was just someone removing criticism, but it occurred to me that it might be more serious than that, so I'm bringing it up here. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 14:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

They are violating WP:NLT< it looks like. I've reverted teh blanking ,but also removed an uncited statement. ThuranX (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Left him a note. Hopefully he'll reply or use the discussion page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: on OTRS now at [70]18:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester (talk • contribs)

[edit] User:Retepretep

This user is editing 1.HNL articles and i have no idea where he comes up with the content. I believe he's been doing it on other articles too. And he's persistant too. A little help would be nice. [[71]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malez (talk • contribs) 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeeny (talk · contribs) → GeeAlice (talk · contribs)

Just a heads up that I've filed an RFCU about Jeeny (talk · contribs) and GeeAlice (talk · contribs). It does not look like previous disruptive conduct is about to reform any time soon. — Zerida 00:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a notice on GeeAlice's talk page about this or the RFCU. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Notified GeeAlice, though I suspect she knew given that she deleted these quotes from her user page [72] (which User:Jeeny also used to have on hers) after I filed the 3RR report. — Zerida 01:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the quotes because of rude behavor by Zerida, and others. Zerida kept reverting a tag I placed on an image to be renamed, Egyptians.jpg to Egyptians collage.jpg. I posted to his talk page asking why, and he responded rudely. I was trying to explain the reason for this change, now this. ←Gee♥Alice 01:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I have indef blocked GeeAlice (talk · contribs) per the outcome of the checkuser. A no brainer since she logged out and started editwarring on the RFCU. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that User talk:Jeeny was deleted because Jeeny claimed to want to execute the right to vanish, but plainly has not done so, should it be undeleted? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lot of that going around lately, huh. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's only a matter of time before she creates her next sockpuppet--I've seen it before. It doesn't stop their pathological obsession or stalking either. However, I don't think it was a good idea to delete the talk page; with such abusive users, all the evidence goes along with it. — Zerida 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The talk page should definitely be undeleted. In fact, I seem to recall posting to this very board a while ago that Jeeny was going to be a problem user.....⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, problem users that use the right to disappear as a fast exit strategy should lose that right if they reappear. David D. (Talk) 22:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've restored it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• As the bowl of petunias said, "oh no, not again". I confidently expect this to carry on through numerous further iterations. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

An inevitable outcome I am sad to say as long as there are editors/admins who feel the urge to provide support and protection to troubled and troublesome users. While it is quite clear to at least some of us that someone this disturbed not only should be nowhere near Wikipedia, but should have been blocked long ago, others apparently disagree! I have this vague memory of the project being about "building an encyclopedia", not running a social service clinic, or a forum where we "hang", keep each other company, and let people run roughshod over every policy and guideline to maintain our POV. — Zerida 03:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: RFCU resulted in indef blocking and tagging of all related accounts. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible edit-war

Hi, I was recently banned so I took a break and haveing been said that, I feel I should ask for help before it escalates. Here's the situation, I've been trying to edit on an article and I provided a reference in the form of a narrative from the video game itself, but there seems to be some people who don't feel I can interpret the narratives portrayals. I do believe the below adheres to my right to contribute to Wikipedia. Anyway, here's the page: [73]

"Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.[3] Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.[4][5] Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." InternetHero (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The short version is, you personally are not a secondary source but rather an agent of original research. Find an appropriately published secondary source with the game narrative and you may have something to work with -- though simply having a source is not itself a guarantee that the material is suitable for inclusion (I make no judgment either way here). — Lomn 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what's being added: plot summaries are almost always sourced to the fictional work in question, because they are neither interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims. But if you, InterhentHero, are doing any more than provided a straightforward plot summary, you should use secondary sources. Natalie (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. What type of source is the games' narrative? I don't even feel I'm making synthetic claims at all. In a nutshell, my interpretaion of the narrative doesn't fall far from simple translation. The character obviously uses the words, 'feel', 'owww', and 'me', yet the other editors feel that this isn't sufficient evidence to interpret that the character does have some self-awareness. For all we know, the other characters could be all cross-dressors, but the only place-holder here is our reason telling us that it is logical that they're not. I feel I'm simply using logic. Does such an interpretation fall further from the narrative than I think? InternetHero (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The game itself is a primary source, and can be used to "make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" (WP:PSTS). Unfortunately, if there is disagreement among editors about your representation of a narrative, it may be best to concede your point, whatever its merits (since by definition it is not therefore "easily verifiable" to them), and concentrate instead on finding a reliable source to support the information you wish to add. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like your straying too far into interpretation to be using the game narrative as your only source here. While your claim does make logical sense, it is a synthesis of new material to claim that a character has self-awareness because it uses certain words. So finding secondary sources would be your best bet here. Natalie (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beyt_Tikkun

This AfD has turned horribly uncivil. I will admit I am a party to this and do not have clean hands. I believe an admin needs to step in and mediate. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear! What would the good rabbi think of such violence?

Seriously, though, nobody's said anything particularly blockworthy yet, you all need to calm down, that's all. You bit a newbie, and three people accused you of lying. Bad, but not terrible. Take a break, the AfD has some time to run, everybody will calm down. Relata refero (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

2 years, 9 months and 19 days on wikipedia and I am a newbie? The three who accused me of "lying" are all of the same opinion so it's not uncommon to see these sorts of tactics. I believe an uninvolved admins mediation is important in order to reinstate civility. Bstone (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe he said you bit a newbie, not that you are one. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it after discussion in IRC. 5 days and just a few edits seemed like not enough. However the reaction has been a bit visceral. Bstone (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read through your comments there, I actually do agree with your application of the spa tag as appropriate. You have to agree that it is easily perceived as bitey though. Ok, you don't have to agree to anything, poorly stated. I 'hope you agree that it could possibly, even easily, be perceived as bitey though. I agree that the debate there is on the warmer side, but not nearly as warm as I've seen it before. I would recommend dispassion. In my experience (which is far less than yours Bstone so please don't take this as condescending, but rather with a grain of salt) is that not replying to every comment that is in opposition to your own opinion is a better way to go. You've made your point there. Others have made there points there. Let the closing admin weigh the discussion against the policies and guidelines. It'll be closed in 2-5 days, (if it stays the way it is now, probably as no consensus), and we can all just move along nicely. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is bitey. But it is also an official wiki tag and uses official wiki wording. If there was a different tag with nicer wording I would have certainly used it. I don't mean to come across rude but adding SPA does have a certain tone with it. Now they are saying I am lying and I assume that's in reference to discussing it with folks (including some admins) in IRC before adding it. I can ask those folks (including the admins) to chime in here in order to verify that I did indeed discuss which tag is appropriate. I believe that I have been neutral in terms of my tone while those who have stated I am a liar have been just the opposite. As far as responding to the opinions of keep, I am desperate to know how people can opine keep when I cite several wiki policies which indicate the basis for their opinion is indeed mute. As of yet none has responded which leads me to believe there is little to respond to. Still, my tone has been neutral and the bite came from the wording which I had absolutely no control over. However, stating I am a liar is tactless and against etiquette. Bstone (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you noticed I added a couple of wiki tags myself to the AfD discussion. I hate the spa tag, but it was placed appropriately. I think a better tag could should exist, but doesn't. What I'll usually do personally is just right a message on the editor's talkpage first (without any templates at all, which are impersonal to say the least). I'll keep watching the AfD, if anyone gets further out of line after the "be nice" and "not a vote" tags, I'll act appropriately (warns, strong warns, or immediate blocks for harassment (though unlikely)). I don't think it will be a problem though, it seems to have calmed a bit in the last couple of hours....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am taking a wikibreak for the next day or so. Perhaps a quick note on the talk pages of those screaming I am a liar about tone and tact? Bstone (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My two cents. This is a good idea to take a break. When Bstone questions every single voter who disagrees with him/her, that does not create a constructive environment. An example of this tone was set by Bstone's comments when s/he stated, "I am simply setting the record straight where people err." By not responding to each vote in favor of the article, or at least by not responding like this, then the tone of the discussion can become more constructive. Let's all take a break from this and let other people have their say and their response. Culturalrevival (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(to BStone (edit conflict)  ::::::::::Absolutely As soon as one of the previous commentators posts anything else there related to you, your position, your experience or in regards to this particular AfD, after seeing my template tags. (To be fair, none of them were made aware of this AN/I post so I won't be magically showing up on their talkpages either in an effort to keep drahma to a minimum). So, to resolve this, the next time something is posted....40 lashes from Keeper.. Cheers, mate, enjoy the WBreak...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeper | 76 Thank you looking out for each and every editor, I appreciate your hard work at objectivity and such lack of bias. Culturalrevival (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Brady (broadcaster)

Would someone have a look at the history of this. Serious BLP issues. IP adding content saying Philip Brady is gay and adding sources that do not mention Philip Brady anywhere in them. He's been warned numerous times and has been told directly that none of the sources he keeps adding mentions Philip Brady anywhere in them, much less anything about Brady being homosexual. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a serious violation of the 25 revert rule... Aecis^Brievenbus 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

HAH! Okay, at least we got a laugh out of it. Snowfire51 (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR/25RR applies to BLP issues?? I didn't know.. I came across is initially where all the IP added was that the article subject was gay. Looked like vandalism to me. Revert. He kept adding, then started adding sources that don't mention the guy. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 00:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was WP:VAN, WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BLP. I guess admins can take their pick. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to get this straight, what the IP did violated 25RR, reverting him/her didn't. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TRECA

There is some disruption on the article for TRECA. A user, alternating between three accounts, keeps inserting material criticising the school and its superintendent. In my humble opinion, their edits violate Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is neutral, no original research, biography of living persons, by targeting the superintendent, and information must be verifiable.

This has been going on since at least November 29.

Accounts in question

• Tommooney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.241.244.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.241.241.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I was going to provide diffs, but the users' contributions above will show you all the diffs you need because they're single purpose accounts. What can be done to address this problem? I wasn't sure where to post this, since it wasn't technically a 3RR violation and may involve sockpuppets, so I hope this is the right place. Thanks, Somno (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. As for Tommooney, given that he/she has only received one warning, let's see if he/she reforms himself/herself. If not, the user should be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Given that the article is stubbed and unsourced, the temptation is to perform the nucliar option and delete it under WP:MORETROUBLETHANITSWORTH. Black Kite 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

True, it's not a great article. It's not even a good article. But maybe if the POV-pushing is stopped, other editors might be encouraged to improve it? I hope so. Thanks for your help Nlu. Somno (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[citation needed], seriously I agree with Black Kite, a quick search [74] brings hits connected to the association itself and the third party sources appear to be directories. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Article PRODded. — Satori Son 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed {{prod}} as I believe the article should not be deleted. If there is belief otherwise, please AfD it. --Nlu (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added some links to the article's Talk page. I also did a quick search and found that there are third party sources out there that aren't directories. Search for "Tri-Rivers Educational Computer Association" instead of TRECA and they'll come up. Somno (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:JGJGJGJGJGJG

An admin might want to inspect the contributions of this user. They've created a number of pages in the wikipedia space that make little sense. As well as some strange coding on their userpage/subpages. Their name may be a violation of policy too. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 15:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

At first blush, the newbie appears to need an education, yes, especially in what's allowable image-wise. Feel free. But a couple useful little stub articles seem to have come from him/her so I'd recommend to be nice for now. The username is fine (I've gotten screamed at for blocking worse). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion of "confusing usernames" at the username policy talkpage. Interested editors might like to comment there. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look at Image:Questionmark copyright.svg? I'm not sure I understand what's going on there, but this user created it with tags claiming that it's on Commons and protected, which obviously it isn't. If this image really is transcluded in a lot of places and really isn't protected, that's just mischief waiting to happen. Corvus cornix_talk 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I had deleted that earlier, and again just now. I listed WP:CSD#I8 as a reason but now that I think about it, I guess it's an WP:CSD#I2 - there is no image. The user is just creating the page for the image, not uploading a new copy. There is a version on Commons which is apparently transcluded a lot and is rightly protected there. Here it doesn't appear to be used that much. But someone should ask why he keeps creating the page all the same. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cyrus111 making a mess again

Sorry, you archived before I got the opportunity to respond.

Unresolved incident resubmitted because the user came back to insert [75] his undue stuff again without any intention to resolve the disagreement per TALK. Quote:

This user tries to revive Aryans and does not mind to use false references to fill Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA) (and reinsert stubbornly) with WP:UNDUE gibberish:

[76].

Moreover, he tries to put material together in a way that constitutes original research (WP:SYNTH), even though he does not manage for the "simple" reason that his sourced references don't support his claims for a bit. This is POV-pushing and in violation of WP:NOR. To be sure, this does not have anything to do with a justified encyclopedic compilation using proper quotes. One example of this abuse of sources out of three:

• His own quote "The Kurgan's thesis is the predominant model of Indo-European origins and likely the origin of the spread of R1a and R1a1." he sourced with Mallory (1989:185). Apart from the very one-sided inaccuracy of the first part of this statement, Mallory was absolutely agnostic of the gene R1a1 in 1989.

I don't know yet what policy he is violating by putting references around his claims using quotes that don't match, still this looks a pretty serious violation of something.

1. An assessment to the abuse of his sourced references you'll find at Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)#Iran_and_Central_Asia
2. We also had discussions here:[77]
3. And also here: [78]

Please do something, because nothing works to make him stop. Rokus01 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokus01 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute? It looks like one, and it is not for Administrator attention (Administrators cannot weigh in on content disputes with their various tools). If it is, then see dispute resolution. Looking at that, I suggest a request for comment. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT a content dispute. This is trolling and vandalism. The WP:UNDUE information that the user keeps inserting here, without even bothering to TALK or produce sensible arguments, makes reference to sources that say something completely different. The guys from Third Opinion don't have a clue either what's it all about, hence the problem is not what content this user wants to insert so badly: it is about why an article should suffer this kind of abuse and face imminent protection, without first addressing the vandal. Rokus01 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. rudra (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain what a diff to a random personal attack of some user (known by the way for quoting attack accounts and sockpuppets) has to do with content? Please don't troll around here to obfuscate this incident. This is about editwarring on undue information abusing references saying something completely different. Rokus01 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Undue information"? "Abusing references"? Spells "content dispute" to me. rudra (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, content is not the issue. The bad behaviour of the editor is. And why you try to obfuscate this incident again? You'd better spell "content dispute" by reading the procedures:

If a situation needs quick attention, report it to WP:AN or ask for page protection. They will take it from there. [79] (Note: page protection is what I try to avoid)

Why urgent? Because (1) Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias, (2) the editor does not bother to discuss the issue or explain his point of view on TALK and (3) is determined to editwar about it. Rokus01 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Janko Tipsarevic.jpg

Hi. I'm not sure if this is a problem, but I'm posting here just in case. The image was uploaded by Milaneus (talk · contribs), originally as non-free. See his talkpage, a bot notified the user. Also, check Google Images for "Janko Tipsarevic". You will notice there is an identical image from ABC Australia. However, (see his contributions) he later uploaded the image as pd-self. See the current image. However, the image is still non-free because on the ABC Australia site, it gives Getty Images or something like that a credit for the image. I also find it unlikely that he took it himself. Is there a convincing metadata for his pd-self? I'm not very familiar with this stuff, so please look into it. I don't think he knows how to specify a proper fair use rationale, either. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, based in part on his comment to you, I highly doubt that he is the photographer Ryan Pierse who took this picture. Speedy deleted as copyright violation. I will investigate whether this editor's other uploads also need action. Sandstein (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I would like my talk page content restored

[80]. At deletion review it says to contact the admin who removed it, but the admins page is protected and no one who is not an admin can write on it. He deleted my user talk page and then put some stuff back, but stuff he puts back dates only to several weeks ago and I believe the whole thing should be restored. Can I put it on deletion review now since I can't contact him? Abridged ^talk 18:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is a complicated situation, but I am somewhat uncomfortable with an admin exercising their Right to Vanish by deleting someone else's talk page. Is there something I am missing that would somehow make this appropriate? — Satori Son 18:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look at it, it seems that the recently VANISHed admin has been amending all reference to themselves - replacing username with "VANISH", etc. I also don't think it is part of the remit for a sysop to part delete anothers talkpage to remove such content. Abridged, can I make a proposal? If I or another admin were to undelete the missing content would you then archive it? I have no idea what relationship you and the other party had, but taking it off your "front" talkpage while allowing access for all other purposes may be a reasonable compromise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The material deleted is, frankly, somewhat slanderous, and she refused to let me simply replaace my name with a proxy. Leave it deleted unless she will let me bloody well vanish. - Vanished user 18:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Adam, this is rather disruptive. Please don't edit war with people on their userpage - much less on ArbCOm pages [81]. If you think revisions need to be deleted, ask an impartial admin to look into it. I have some sympathy with your wish to redact your full name, but I recommend you do so with the agreement of other people. Removing even any mention of your Christian name seems a little ridiculous. WjBscribe 19:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this what oversight is for? —Whig (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oversight is for revealed personal info and the like. This doesn't raise to that level to my understanding. Vanished user, why don't you just apply for a rename and then it would be more palatable to remove your name from all archives? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have. To User:Vanished user. - [[WP:VANISH]|Vanished user]]

I'm pretty sure that's not what Wknight meant. — Satori Son 19:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, I see now that an actual name change request was filed but declined. Sorry. — Satori Son 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I see the rename is becoming contentious too. Figures. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions: Is the current series of changes by Vanished User something that any editor could do if they wished, or does it require administrator power?

How long does a person retain Admin status after they vanish? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion can only be done by administrators. Account renames can only be done by bureaucrats. Changing your name on talk pages and archives can be done by anyone. For some reason, the thread initiator is reverting the name changes. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored these edits. Adam, this is not the way to go about this. Request for these deletions to be made by another admin. David D. (Talk) 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to archive (I'll figure out how to do it). There was nothing slanderous against vanished user by the way. If vanisheduser had just asked me, I would have helped him, but I just feel he should have gotten others involved rather than doing this by caveat on his own. Abridged ^talk 19:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Drawing up attention to oneself is a perfect way to vanish. </sarcasm> Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know these editors but instead of the rudeness and bad attitude going on why can't the editor just take everything out of the archives? It seems like a simple solution then all of the drama and behavior. Just my opinion but to me this is just common sense. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you may have misunderstood. Most of my talk page content was deleted and I had no access to it at all. This is why I posted here, to get the content restored. It has been done, and it has been archived as someone suggested above. Abridged ^talk 20:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Teddy.Coughlin

User Teddy.Coughlin is constantly adding false information into articles after I told him to stop. When I did so, he kept on adding false and unsourced information.

He is also operating an IP address 24.63.6.149 and doing the same thing.

He was blocked previously (Username and IP address), but it didn't work. So I am requesting a long term block on the username and IP address since final warnings are not working at all. Momusufan (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

He is still continuing to add false and unsourced information as of this writing. Momusufan (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to give us concrete evidence, with WP:DIFFs, that this is about purposeful disruption rather than about a content dispute (which we do not mediate here; see WP:DR for more information). Sandstein (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

here is some diff's to prove it. [82] [83] [84]

The IP address is making similar edits as well. Momusufan (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not persuaded me why this needs administrator intervention, and how. These edits look unproblematic to me. If you simply think the user adds wrong information, see WP:DR. You should then only come back here if you can clearly show that this is an issue of systematic vandalism. Sandstein (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 129.133.124.199 - Continued hostility and incivil behaiviour

Previously posted comments like: "I know it galls your sanctimonious self-image to have to face your own hostility, but that isn't my problem", "...clearly you've been acting like a petulant child..." "Stunning. I mean, if you had no ethical pretensions whatever, then your bitter unscrupulousness would be expected", and so on. Was blocked for uncivil behavior and removing material like this when the editor didn't agree with the references.

After the block ended has continued personal attacks with claiming that he's being stalked, sock puppet allegations, "If you can't curb your aggression, why don't you consider therapy? Your content is wrong, and the game you are playing is borderline psychotic." and continued claims that he's being attacked with no evidence provided of that yet. I'm not sure if a block is appropriate but the editor has been exceedingly hostile toward a bunch of editors. Any ideas? Sasquatch t|c 19:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no need for us to accept such conduct under any circumstances. I'm applying a one month {{schoolblock}} to the IP, up from 2 weeks last time, so that the editor may come back with an account if he thinks he's learned to behave civilly. Sandstein (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully support this block. It's this kind of trollish behavior that can drive away valuable contributors, and we should not tolerate it whatsoever. — Satori Son 20:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would also highly recommend a block to the user's other IP of abuse, User_talk:159.247.3.210, see the history and talk pages of Theta Nu Epsilon, Wesleyan University, and others where abuse is recent, and in the case of the Theta Nu talk page, ongoing. The last time this user was blocked, s/he shifted to IP 210 and created quite a bit of bad karma at the Theta Nu Epsilon article; that page is now protected indefinitely and the talk page discussion has broken down as a result. Removing this person's input from editing that talk page would, I believe, be a breath of fresh air to the other editors and allow them to resolve some of their difficulties. In any case, thanks so much for attending to this; it's been an ongoing problem across several articles for a long time. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• The same IP was also very abusive on Talk:List of collegiate secret societies for quite a while, as well. They don't seem to understand what being civil is. Corvus cornix_talk 02:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog From Hell

There's a backlog up the wazoo at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets; I count about 30 cases there. I just posted my first one and am unfamiliar with how SSP works; could we get some aid to whittle it down? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anon IP - incivility, refusal to discuss, what to do?

Hi there. At Palestinian people I'm dealing with an anon IP that has twice accused me of being a "mossad agent" [85] [86], despite having asked him after the first time to avoid personal attacks. He is also repeatedly insisting on inserting text, unsourced and poorly composed into the introduction, without respecting the fact that almost three months of discussion went into formulating the first sentence of said introduction. I don't know how to deal with this. I've asked him to discuss on his talk page. His reply (to the negative) is here. I don't want to revert him again (I already have twice and I'm not into edit-warring). The article content is degraded by his edits and he won't discuss alternatives. (See talk page section here: [87]) Please help. Tiamut^talk 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the article as the changes are messing up the article's appearance. Nakon 20:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If the ip reverts/re-introduces their text without discussion I suggest warning them that they are editing against consensus, that per Bold, Revert, Discuss they have been reverted and any changes made without discussion will be reverted as vandalism/disruption. Following such a final warning you can a) revert without fear of violating 3RR, and b)report transgression to WP:AIV for admin attention (which will likely be quicker than coming back here). Any report to AIV should mention both the existing consensus and this discussion for quicker resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both so much for your help and advice. He seems to have calmed down now and is engaging in some discussion. I am hoping that will last. Again, thank you. Tiamut^talk 21:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

On a personal note, this last week, besides being called a "Mossad agent" as above, I was also accused of being a "racist" against Israelis [88] by a user that was subsequently blocked. Can't please anybody these days! Tiamut^talk 21:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm... A mossad double agent? An anti mossad mossad agent? Possibly even worse than that, a NPOV warrior! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] is this disruptive?

Bamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) And Tons of IP's, is making many, many, many, many changes without leaving comments or edit summaries and clogging up recent changes and the page histories of National Policing Improvement Agency - (created by Amcluesent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)), List of Special Response Units, Serious Organised Crime Agency and others. Attempts have been made on his talk page and the editor claims he works for the NPIA, see [89][90][91][92]. All the accounts and IP's have similar edit patterns. I've reported this to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#National_Policing_Improvement_Agency. Although many of the edits seem good, i don't think ive seen his type of editing before--Hu12 (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked it over and am AGF'ing it. I have made similar comments to those as yours (i.e. please use the preview function) and made it clear that I am a Brit, and made some hopefully helpful suggestions, so they don't think they are being hassled by a bunch of ex-Colonials. I haven't mentioned it there, but I think they were a little upset at being referred to as a vandal. I must admit it was quite satisfying to tell a rozzer person connected with law enforcement what they should be doing - and one from the Met, at that! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are asking if "making many, many, many, many changes without leaving comments or edit summaries and clogging up recent changes and the page histories of National Policing Improvement Agency -" is disruptive, is it that you are trying to get someone to agree that it is disruptive so the person can be banned? Is what you describe disruptive, the answer is no. It's more like a not so good style of editing. Spevw (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your reading a bit much into the question, obvious disruption would have resulted in my blocking him myself. When editors attempt to contact a user about the particulars of certain behaviors with little or no result, community input is necessary. Example being LessHeard vanU's comment may be able to establish communication better than those of us who have already tried.--Hu12 (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Since User:Bamford is the only COI-affected editor currently using an account to edit this group of articles, I invited him to join the discussion over at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#National Policing Improvement Agency. Meanwhile I have suggested some other ideas for handling this, in the same noticeboard entry, including interim semi-protection of the articles and Bamford's agreement to some precautions about the COI. If you have ideas for handling this please leave a comment over there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thread reactivation (JzG blocks)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of three of the above blocks, where I've reactivated a thread that people may have moved on from, so I'm notifying people here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soapboxing

Fairdeal08 (talk · contribs) has apparently decided to employ WP as a personal soapbox -- or perhaps "pulpit" is a better word -- by continuing to insert a personal essay about belief into Talk:Agnosticism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism‎, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity‎, and, finally, in article space, at What to believe. He's been given multiple instances of advice as to why this is inappropriate, but shows no sign or willingness to understand said advice [93] [94] [95]. I don't think he's here to contribute, personally, just hijack, but if someone wants to take run at him, be my guest. --Calton | Talk 02:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Article has now been deleted as patent nonsense, and I was about to do that myself. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is follow up at Wikipedia:Help_desk#I_need_help_with_a_vandalism_deletion_of_my_article_pages Jeepday (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:OracleGD blanking his warnings

This. I warned him to not blank his warnings, but he just keeps doing it over and over again. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 03:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take a peek here: Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings. He may blank the warnings if he wishes. Charles 03:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

From his own talk page yes, it is considered proof they saw it. If the reason(s) that caused the warnings continue, he can be blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles is right, and just beat me to the punch. It's true, any editor can remove warning messages (or anything else) from their talk pages. The warnings will be in his page history, if an admin needs to refer to them. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see... thanks. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 03:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:DX927

DX927 (talk · contribs) has ownership issues with Warped Tour 2008, and continues to use the Undo button to revert other editors with whom they disagree. I tried to explain that use of the Undo button isn't proper, but they don't seem to care. My removal of MySpace "references" were reverted with the Undo button and I was told that "we" (I don't know what DX927 means by "we") have been doing this for years, and I should "move on". Corvus cornix_talk 06:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:DX927 blocked 3 hours for a 3RR cooling off period on Warped Tour 2008. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zenwhat blocked indefinitely

I have blocked Zenwhat (talk · contribs) for what seems to be a bizarre pattern of disruption - odd "joke" edits such as [96], adding provocative discussion to Jimbo's talk page when Jimbo has nothing to do with it at all, edit warring with other users on their talk pages, making POINTy userspace pages that have been repeatedly speedied, among many others; all with very contribution to building our encyclopedia. Others have tried to reason with/warn him, such as at User talk:Zenwhat#Your purpose here and User talk:Zenwhat#Only warning, but it really just seems like he's only here for general disruption and trolling of the project and its community. I think it's clear that the community is at the end of its rope with him, and I have blocked him indefinitely; I welcome any further review or comments from the community. krimpet✽ 04:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

About time someone stopped the trolling. β^_command 04:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and endorse indef block. I think we've had enough. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully support this block. I also posted to Zenwhat's talk page recently here; seems no amount of hinting is getting through to an obviously intelligent editor. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2):From what I can tell of the timeline, his only edit after the final warning was a reasonable discussion of "the Register" article on Jimbo's talk page which in itself isn't reason for block. Granted some of his edits have been "weird", he hasn't done anything block worthy after the mentioned final warning. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This was an older one. I had been musing on what to do myself - [97]....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Might be a little abrupt, but sometimes enough is enough. RxS (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block per these edits: "inclusionism the force of evil," "inclusionism and deletionism are evil," [98], [99], "The inclusionist cabal," [100], [101], and [102]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All of which happened before his final warning.. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been expecting this block for a while. Yes, there's a chance that he'll behave better if someone unblocks him, but more likely, he'll just be re-indef'd in two weeks or so. --Carnildo (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"For instance, I assume that your constructive PETA and WP:V are just a cover for your anti-Libyan POV pushing. " Joking or not, that's trolling. Endorse the block. — DarkFalls ^talk 04:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Been watching it since this [103]. Endorse the block, trolling needs to stop.--Ѕandahl 04:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with the block, it just seems so sudden, from the look of his talk page the user was discussing about a warning concerning his behavior shortly before being blocked, perhaps it would have been wise to let that discussion continue (since he only edited mainspace once after it was started) or at least issuing a shorter block before the indef. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this block - Zenwhat's mostly meta-editing, and a lot of it's silly, but very little of it crosses the line into truly disruptive.

Mostly or entirely meta-editing is an issue, which has been held to be something which isn't good and needs to be corrected. Crossing the line with silly stuff has also been held to be a problem.

But this block fails to AGF and fails to give the type of clear warnings and good-faith efforts to work with the user to correct problematic behavior that we expect.

I am strongly inclined to unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You make a reasonable case, I think. From the support for the block it sound like many people find him annoying, but this in itself isn't reason for an indef block. Maybe people with serious concerns about his editing would consider an RFC? An indef block is a harsh step if other dispute resolution avenues have not yet been explored. Friday (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How are edits like this not disruptive? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also done before his final warning. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's disruptive (on the disruptive side of being silly, but disruptive). No warning, no shorter block, straight to indef because of this? This exceeds the tolerance band for "exhausted community patience". Failure to provide adequate feedback to problem users and adequate opportunity for reform is a massive failure of administrator good faith. Mentor? Sure. Shorter block? Sure. Warnings? Definitely. Indef right now? I am wondering if it's necessary to file an arbcom case. Hopefully both the community and Krimpet see reason and adjust response accordingly.

If all he does for the next month, after being properly warned and helped and talked to and shorter blocked, is more disruption, then I stand aside. Lacking those efforts... this is wrong, here and now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this block from the diffs provided and my interactions with the user. Lara❤Love 05:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I've encountered Zenwhat on various pages and generally found his comments to usually be somewhere between comically strange and trolling. Unfortunately his comments have been mostly toward the latter lately. I endorse this block. Mr.Z-man 05:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would advocate that an unblock be applied only if he is mentored, otherwise remain blocked. I might be biased, as I have only seen the more negative sides of him, but the mere existence of blatantly POINTy requests and actions and trolling over an extended period of time is too poignant to ignore. AGF does not mean we don't react if we keep getting slapped in the face. —Kurykh 05:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite block is extreme overkill. Blocking itself is a last resort, and indef. blocking even more so. Do shorten this block, per the blocking policy. This user has gotten two blocks in their time here. Is there any reason to believe that a 24 hour block would not suffice? -- Ned Scott 05:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly my point, no other blocks or anything of the sort, just jumping directly to the banhammer seems inappropiate, and I feel that the block was placed to get rid of him because he has a tendency of being "annoying". - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Support block, though uncertain on length of time. Zenwhat has little to no understanding of our basic policies, and even when they are explained, he responds with nothing more than contempt. Here he refers to me as a single purpose account and POV-pusher. There is no doubt in my mind Zenwhat is a reincarnation of a former editor (banned or retired, again I'm not sure) and his edits do nothing to benefit this project. With that said, Zenwhat needs to immediately change his ways, but there is a chance he could be a productive editor if he does so. - auburnpilot talk 05:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, a block is in order, but we shouldn't conclude an indef block yet. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember, indefinite doesn't mean infinite; it just means the length of the block hasn't been decided or will be determined by the future actions of the blocked user. Sancho 05:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the indef block given much of what I've seen over the last several weeks. But since I can reasonably guess it'll be shortened, I'd support a namespace ban, no edits to the project space/project talk space for 2 months, excepting Wikipedia:Bots/Status. Possibly extending to other "discussion" spaces, depending on a more detailed examination of his edits. MBisanz ^talk 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think that might be too extreme. Give him a 24 hour, or even a week long block. He's only gotten one other block other than the one he has now. I've come across him in the project talk namespace, and while I thought his comments were a bit off the wall, I didn't consider it disruptive. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone, please do remember that "indefinite" does not mean "infinite," whatever precedent may indicate or imply. An unblock or shortening of the existing block is still on the table. —Kurykh 05:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a shortening of his block to a week or more and then a Wikispace ban after that, besides requests to AIV, RPP, and the like. I think that indef blocking is overkill in this case, but the trolling still warrants a block for a longer period of time. bibliomaniac15 05:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse the block. The user has been bordeline trolling at the Village Pump for some time; his discussions are unneccesarily provacative. I would support an unblock ONLY under the condition that he receive a ban against all non-article editing. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Would people support a reduction to 48 hours with a further warning? He's had a 24 hour block, for a similar reason, 48 might be a good middle ground for a next step. RxS (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if that includes a temporary ban on project space. - auburnpilot talk 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The original indef block makes more sense than a reduction to me. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, too bad the blocking policy doesn't think that way. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he'll get the message enough that we won't need a project space ban. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary limits seem silly. If we believed that the user was interested in stopping the problematic behavior today, then there would be overwhelming support to overturn the block. 48 hours is not a magic number, unless we are in the business of handing out "sentances" for "crimes", and last I checked, that was not part of an admin's job description. Unless the user agrees to abide by a Wikipedia: namespace ban, I don't see where any arbitrarily shortened block would serve any purpose at all. This block is not an attempt to stop an imminently disruptive behavior, this is a chronic problem and deserves a permanent solution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Our procedure for handling chronic problems is warn, warn, warn, try to mentor, warn, block short period, warn, try to mentor, block longer period, warn, warn, try to mentor, block slightl longer period... and repeat a bunch until indef is the last option left.

If that procedure is followed and at the end of it, Zenwhat remains disruptive, then pull the plug. But this action has unacceptably foreshortened the endgame. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

INdeed. I agree with you 100%. I was questioning the wisdom of a 48 hour block for this. Again, we are not a court system, we don't hand out punishments. One of two things must be true: The user either poses an iminent threat that we need to stop NOW (i.e. edit warring or 3RR), or the user has exhausted the patience of the community and is no longer welcome. The debate should be about unblocking them NOW or leaving it as an indefiniate block. The inbetween stuff is pointless, as it serves no purpose. We're not lawyers working out a plea-bargin here. We're trying to decide if this user poses a net risk to Wikipedia. If they don't, unblock them now. If they do, leave it up indefinately. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think he should be blocked at all, but I figure 48 was something to make those who wanted indef something they could see as reasonable. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a bit concerned about the timing of this block relative to the arrival of an article critical of Wikipedia which Zenwhat claimed to have been a (apparently unwitting) part of. Feels like someone felt he borke the first rule of Fight Club Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a link for this? -- Ned Scott 05:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This link? Endorse shortened block and project space ban. Franamax (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not even 48 hours. His only edit after the final warning, was not a disruptive one and he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place until he violated that final warning. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So he is allowed to disregard all previous warnings, but if he supposedly heeds the final warning, which shouldn't be needed in the first place, he should be unblocked? Every warning should be a final warning. —Kurykh 05:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Say what ???? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No but at least that should have been taken under consideration before blocking, usually blocks are issued when a violation happens after the final warning. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecX5): Considering it was given as a final warning, even named as such on his talk page, he shouldn't have been blocked until he violated it. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecXmany) Endorse unblock (with extreme reluctance, because I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia's a more pleasant place without him) for several reasons, primarily those put forward by User:Allstarecho. If he violates his final warning after being unblocked, he should receive escalating blocks. He's just not a clear enough troll to warrant an indef. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haggling

So, we've got quite a crowd endorsing the indefinite, and a few strongly objecting. How about a week? It's not at all obvious to me that dispute resolution methods short of the indefinite block have been exhausted. Friday (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would rather want a guarantee that he will change and his understanding of what the consequences of another such violation of our policies here will be, rather than an arbitrary block duration that is almost meaningless. —Kurykh 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't make someone turn on a dime. Lets ask for reasonable improvement. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat has an unusual contribution history. His very first edit (and 3 subsequent edits) were to his monobook.css file. His fourth was a revert on The Transhumanist's user page. Has anyone done a check to see if these users are the same person? Zenwhat is clearly not a new user when he signed up for his account. It's possible, of course, that he had been editing for some time under an IP address (which is allowed), but it's more likely that he is either a reincarnation of another user, or a sockpuppet. None of that is necessarily against Wikipedia rules, but this account has been used from the start primarily for disruptive and bizarre project-space edits. If the account is a sock, then it should be blocked and the user told to stop doing silly stuff and to edit from his main account. If not, the user should be restricted to editing only articles (no project space or user space) and put on vandalism parole. *** Crotalus *** 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

He's admitted to being a previous user and having re-regged after forgetting his old password. He's not so much a sock as he is a nuisance. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem with a temp/indef project space ban is that we'd have no way to judge if he's gotten the message. I think he's proven he knows the behavioral guidelines well enough to know the effect he has by his editing patterns, he's gotten warnings...48 hours seems right. Can we get a general agreement on that? RxS (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, see my comments above. A any temporary length block is arbitrary. It would be punishment, and we do not punish. Either unblock now, or leave the block up. If we believe the user will cease the problematic behavior, then there is no reason to leave the block in place. If we believe the user will not cease the problematic behavior, then what is the point of simply allowing them to continue the behavior in 48 hours? What is magic about 48 hours or 1 week or any other number? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not any amount of time. As I said above, his only 2 edits after the final warning, were not a disruptive ones and he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place until he violated that final warning. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Then unblock, we can't predict what pattern he will take if he only was able to edit the mainspace once after receiving the final warning. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd have a point if this was a regular vandal, but we're talking about an experienced user who should know better. He's gotten enough feedback to know that his edits were a problem, whether they were official warnings or not. RxS (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No number is magical. But the answer is likely to be somewhere in between "unblock right now" and "never unblock". A few days block would help make it clear to Zenwhat that many editors find his behavior problematic. Friday (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I will oppose any unblock that does not contain the guarantee that he will change his attitudes, behavior, and actions, and a method of dealing with him if such circumstances arise again. Enough of his disruption and trolling. —Kurykh 05:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef block is way, way overkill here. Not appropriate at all. Bstone (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zenwhat has retired per [104]. MBisanz ^talk 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not pay that any mind. He's obviously upset (with a right to be), and so I don't think it's fair to say that his retirement is permeant. Regardless of that, his account should be unblocked. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not reviewed Zenwhat's edits and know him only from interactions on my talk page. Mostly he has come there and joked around, but not in any particularly bad way if I recall. We have had some tongue-in-cheek discussions that I enjoyed. However, article space joking around is of course Not Funny(tm), and I don't approve of that. But making fun of Cade Metz's bizarre rantings in The Register seems like a good thing. I would recommend and request that he be unblocked but under a very firm request not to joke around in article space. Of course I say this not having reviewed his contributions, so I could be wrong. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue seems largely NOT with his article-space edits, but with his unneccessarily provocative edits in the project-space, such as here at ANI and on the Village Pump. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But what is "provocative"? The blocking admin said that the last edit (straw?) to JW's page was "provocative", but clearly not everyone sees it that way. R. Baley (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to be diplomatic. He's been trolling the project discussion pages for some time. That is the central issue. Again, leave the block up or unblock now. The rest of this seems like we're plea-bargining over a punishment, and that is not why we block people. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone looked over Zenwhat's recent contributions at Wikipedia Talk:IAR and Wikipedia Talk:WIARM since Miszabot'a recent archive? Scroll down some, it's hard to miss Zenwhat accusing, and harassing other editors as a first line of argument. Then the appeals to logic( a personal and solipsistic variety). Does Zenwhat wish to contribute to Wikipedia? In any meaningful way? The rants on these talk pages are contrary to efficient use of the Wikipediaspace talkpages, and these are policies. Not that Zenwhat is the only disruptive editor to show up on such pages, or the worst one ever, of course. Newbyguesses - Talk 15:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A ban is not the first step

A ban is the last step in the process, not the first one. The first step is giving this user specific ways he/she can improve, possibly through an RFC. He's come across my radar before and I've raised an eyebrow, but he's obviously a good faith user and it's worth taking a chance on trying to help him improve. --B (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is banning him. We just want to see a commitment to improvement. How hard is it to achieve that? All I see is whimpers of "too harsh" and "should be unblocked" and "blocked after final warning," yet I see no genuine attempts or proposals of committing Zenwhat to get his act together by the naysayers here. —Kurykh 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe that final warning did what you're wanting? We will never know since he was blocked anyway, will we? Especially since he's now retired from WP. Shame too. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I have lost any good faith on Zenwhat heeding warnings, given his prior responses to them. —Kurykh 06:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(to Kurykh) No, that's not how it works. We don't care if he says sorry and gives us puppy eyes. This block is extreme overkill. We have other ways to deal with this, and any blocking is seen as a last resort. If you don't like that, Kurykh, take it up with the blocking policy. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who doesn't want the unconditional unblock, as you can see from this thread. And I don't need him to give puppy eyes and say sorry. I just want an explicit commitment from him, and a detail of consequences were decorum be breached again. This is common procedure in these cases. I just don't see why we are allowing this one to be the sole exception. —Kurykh 06:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that he was given a final warning, he did not cause any further violations and yet he was indef blocked anyways. That is plainly disturbing. Bstone (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is all over the place. How about an unblock for now with a strong warning that there are serious concerns about his behavior. The point has probably been driven home effectively over the last hour. It also has to be made clear that Jimbo's comments above do not sanction his editing habits. Let's head off any more drama, and see how he reacts to all this? RxS (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would support an unblock now. I know I said something different WAY back there, but yes, the point is made. If the problems return, the block can return. He's hardly "under the radar" now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have grave concerns about due process here. It seems to me that several possible steps in dispute resolution and blocking procedure were skipped. As much as Zenwhat irritates me, this is a miscarriage. I'm discomfited by it. I would support a week's block, but indef is far too extreme. - Philippe | Talk 21:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocked and put on probation

See User talk:Zenwhat#Unblocked - I have unblocked Zenwhat as there is clearly disagreement here as to the appropriateness of the block. I have also left a more clearer and wide-ranging (and less bitey) warning and probation statement there.

I invite admins to work with him with friendly discussion and cautions as appropriate. As I noted on his talk page, further serious disruption should be met by (short but increasingly long) blocks as per policy. I am not giving him a pass - I have applied longstanding user sanctions policy here. If he continues to be disruptive act appropriately. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the block, I think there is something special about this user. The user is over active, intelligent and very aware of the wikipedia policies and its history. The user knows the system from a high level perspective: See how the user responded to me at [105], it closed my mouth to some extent. I am mostly interested to know this user, admittedly the strangest user I have ever seen on wikipedia. I originally thought that the user is over active because he wants to become an admin, and tried to check this hypothesis, but as of now, I think the user is just active in nature. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And this is [106] worth seeing. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! That [107] is extremely clever! And of course has some insight, inasmuch as it simply applies the eightfold way to Wikipedia. Leaves me with a grinding sense of envy that I didn't do it. Anway, what are you guys doing blocking this guy, whose major contribution seems to be to make you think when you're rather not? Ignore him if that is the case! Banning or indef blocking (too little difference these days between the two given editors dislike of going against each other) is very harsh. And should be reserved for clear vandals, not gadflies. Definition of Clear Vandal, in case you've forgotten: ISP user who erases article or part of one, and inserts "Johhny suuucks *&%$." SBHarris 00:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] He's Back

[108] Charles Stewart (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am against issuing any blocks against against this user whatsoever . As I mentioned above, this user is special and the above diff provided by Charles proves this further. This user may have things to say and I for one want to listen if there is anything to be learned. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for one week

I have now blocked him for one week for his behaviour since his unblock. You can see my explanation on his talk page[109]. Feel free to extend, unblock, or whatever else is appropriate and has some consensus here. Fram (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the block. What was wrong with village pump post? --Be happy!! (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That it was trolling / stirring up drama by alleging secret information right after a warning against trolling? It was a pretty good own goal, though, as the financial statements had just been published less than an hour before Zenwhat's post. I don't know if one week was the proper block length, but some block was probably necessary if we want "probation" to mean anything. Kusma (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

... And that he removed comments by others when he removed the thread he started. You are not allowed to remove the comments by other people just because you change your mind for whatever reason. Doing this when one is only just unblocked and put on probation was not the best move. Fram (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the validity of his claims but why was it trolling?

And removing the section he had started does not create sufficient ground for a block; all the other comments were responses to his original comment after all. The proper way was to archive it, though, but this is a minor thing after all... --Be happy!! (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. First, while the terms of Georgewilliamherbert's probation do preclude the use of Wikipedia primarily for meta-discussion, and Zenwhat did post a meta-discussion post. But he later removed it. It should be apparent that the removal of the post was an indication that Zenwhat regretted the post or at least realised it would cause disruption; or that, instead of immediately blocking Zenwhat, he should at least be engaged on his talk page. By removing his post he has, at the very least, proved himself somewhat reasonable and sensitive to the terms of probation.

Zenwhat is already on a short leash, and realises that now. He also realised that posting the thread was disruptive, and in his realisation removed the thread. And now we are blocking him for his actions upon realisation, as opposed to reinstating the thread, archiving it and counseling Zenwhat? Ridiculous. --Iamunknown 15:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat recognises that he should have archived rather than removed. However, the notion of this being a "1 week blocking offence"-type disruption is ridiculous. The discussion was still preserved in the history (an argument that Jimbo Wales has used to justify courtesy blanking of ArbCom pages). The edit summary makes the fact that the intent was to prevent disruption clear. Fram should reverse this block. Failing that, and even in the absence of an unblock request from Zenwhat, another admin should step in and rectify Fram's mistake. Fram's decision to restore the section - unarchived - appears not so much an attempt to preserve comments as it was an attempt to hold Zenwhat up to ridicule. I base this on the comment Fram made on Zenwhat's talk page (now stricken) that the section in question made him look a fool. This was not a cool and dispassionate use of tools based on an objective look at the situation, and the block should be reversed on that basis alone. Jay*Jay (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is just a case of someone wanting him blocked and using the terms of his probation as an excuse. Georgewilliamherbert's stipulations do not prevent Zenwhat from meta-discussion. Georgewilliamherbert only pointed out that Zenwhat's meta-discussion are considered controversial and objectionable. He didn't outright say "don't post meta-discussion". The Village Pump post was not in violation of the probation terms nor was it disrupting. In fact, many users were engaged in the conversation. He does have the right to remove something, especially since he felt he put it there in the first place out of anger. He even had the best possible edit summary explaining his removal. This block as well is foul. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 16:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed the policy change where it is allright to remove posts from other users just because you initiated the thread... And the best possible edit summary? He didn't want a flamefest, so he removed a post that was (according to you) not disruptive, and where no flames or even smoke were apparent... Fram (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

After all the discussion about his first block, and then an unblock and a warning he writes Based on a certain inside informer I know, I have learned that in 2007, the Wikimedia Foundation has been squandering your donations?? And spamming it on editors talk pages. I think a week is fine....that's pretty dang close to a classic case of trolling, no matter if he did remove it later. Endorse re-block, if someone wants to adjust the length that's fine, but it's clear he learned nothing from the first go around. RxS (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this block supposed to be preventing? Blocks are, after all, preventative, not punitive. Given that he deleted the thread himself, he sort of seems a low risk of re-offending. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It prevents the exact type of behavior the user would continue in if left unblocked. that is what it prevents. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems he undid the offending post. If this sort of behaviour or other behaviour breaching the probation was to continue then there would be merit for a block, but a single offence of questionable intent doesn't seem to cut it. I'd rather see how this travels before we get a decision. Have unblocked per the discussion here and on Zenwhat's talk page - does not preclude further blocks if he offends again, but I think he's got the message that change is expected of him. Orderinchaos 17:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There are far worse users who get a bye here at Wikipedia

Interesting how this particular user seems to have gotten the goad of some of the *ahem* usual suspects. Sure, this user is rough around the edges (kinda like me) and has done some things that are provocative -- perhaps even to the point of trying the community patience. But that you guys would see fit to block Zenwhat indefinitely and then hold the hand of many of the other argumentative weirdos that use Wikipedia as their personal playground for disruption is beyond me. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Zenwhat's announced retirement has quite possibly closed this matter. I personally hope that there will be no need to return to it in the future; a satisfactory solution looks unlikely, and Zenwhat's approach makes it doubtful that his work could have the intended positive effect on the community. --Kizor 15:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of his comments are kinda crazy, but I've found some his input to be helpful and positive. So no, you are wrong. This block is unnecessary, and should be undone. I'll give a standing offer to Zen that if he wants anything posted, I'll do it for him. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There was some well-intended bits in there but the tin-foil hats required made much of it, ironically, static which they seemed to object to. Benjiboi 07:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I found him to be kinda annoying on many occasions (unjustified AfDs and so on) and incomprehensible most of the time. His net contribution to the encyclopedia is probably negative, given the amount of time it takes to deal with him. Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)