Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive211

User:Chaaaz & Nomen Nescio

I suspect that User:Chaaaz is a sockpuppet of Nomen Nescio. He was created simply to put a comment on this very board in support of Nescio's suggestion to ban me. I think that both User:Chaaaz and Nomen Nescio should be banned.--Dr who1975 14:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Chaaaz is a sock of someone, don't care who. As for you and Nescio, I suggest you try dispute resolution, second on the left down the hall. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is no need for dispute resolution. This user went on a massive editrun on several pages (see his contibution from 1.30-2.00h today), including moving them. Without sufficient discussion to undertake such behaviour I and another user, who also warned him to stop, merely reverted him. He is welcome to the relevant talk pages and propose his suggested moves.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• The dispute resolution, then, takes the form of an RfC on User:Dr who1975. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism and Personal Attacks by user 80.193.169.137

The above user has both vandalised articles and directed personal attacks at the user User:80.192.242.187 (Signs posts as 'JemmyH') consistently. I am posting on here on behalf of said 'JemmyH' due to his unregistered status. The user 80.193.169.137 has also, in the past, posted on User:Jhamez84 talk page where a further personal attack was aimed at User:Jhamez84 . The full catalogue of 80.193.169.137 contributions can be found here[[1]]. Examples of vandalism can be seen here [[2]], here[[3]] and here[[4]]. The personal attack on User:Jhamez84 can be found here[[5]]. Thank you.Man2 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

PaxEquilibrium

This user is constatnly rude, abusive and now he accuses me of being a sockpuppet of someone else. Though there is no connection between me and this person he makes the offical accustion here [6] he posted my account and connects it with several anon's and one previously banned user to which I can not be connected in any way. This is nothing but fishing. I actually wouldn't complain since perhaps I would think he made a mistake, and so I would tolerate it, unless I was accused before that by another user Paulcicero here [7] which was supported by the same user PaxEquilibrium and another user (who is often revert-warring) Nikola Smolenski. This accusation was proven false. Then comes in PaxEquilibrium at User talk:Tariqabjotu and alleges I am some User:Afrika paprika person who was banned long before I even came and decided to register, alleging my edits are similar to his for which there is absolutly no proof and is definately not true. The funny thing is that he also points as his evidence how a certain member User:GreaterCroatia referred to me as this AfrikaPaprika person which is very strange moment for him to come in and call me that just as another person has made an accusation of me being this person?! This all started with the discussion on Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich and since then all these people I mentioned have been following me around and making false allegations against me. I demand something to be done so that these people finally leave me alone. Tar-Elenion 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Essjay RFC

David Gerard, who obviously has strong concerns for Essjay's well being, deleted the RFC and it's talk page, on the grounds it wasn't "certified". Though I understand the motivation behind this, it strikes me as a very bad idea to appeal to "process" as a way to sweep such issues under the rug just as the New York Times [8] and others are discussing them. Dragons flight 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also see my request to David to undelete the page. —Doug Bell ^talk 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this is a current event being discussed in both printed and electronic media. It should not have been deleted while people were still discussing the events of the past 36 hours. Munta 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review is that way, but this is obviously a valid deletion as there wasn't a single certifier. Without the two-certifier requirement RFC would be a massive troll magnet, and it must be respected. Is there anything that hasn't been said or still needs to be done? Unlikely. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Do you really feel a deletion review would be helpful at this time, it would be to debating cencorship. Deleting this page so quickly is merely going to be kerosene on dying flames. Giano

At DRV. Dragons flight 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• God just look at the comments there already. Some people in authority on this encyclopedia need saving from themselves. If D Gerard was intending to help Essjay, then he has gone avery strange way about it. Giano 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone seems to have forgotten that it was put on RfC by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay. I'd think the best action would have been to review that MfD close, not to overturn it by a speedy deletion. GRBerry 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Joques2theFuture

Seems inappropriate, since he states on it that he hates Edgar181. At a minimum, probably worth watching in case of future inappropriate action. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed for now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Primetime sock?

I blocked The Kingdom of Hate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for this, but is it sincere or a weird joke? Chick Bowen 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? --138.38.32.84 17:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably sincere. Primetime makes an occasional editorial remark. -Will Beback · † · 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but vandalism from this IP

205.247.247.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This IP has never made a single constructive edit. It has been blocked in the past for vandalism and the talk page is a mess of warnings. More vandalism today at Chicago Theatre. Recent edits seem to indicate that the person is gaming the system by using this IP to vandalize once a month (probably using others as well). Maybe it's an open proxy? Anyway, I think this IP should be indef blocked as whoever is using it is obviously only out to make trouble. TheQuandry 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The appropriate place would be WP:AIV. Blocked again this time. However, we never block indef IP addresses. We just extend their blocks anytime they return vandalizing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

DvDknight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalizing User:Chacor

This account probably needs indefinite blocking as a compromised account per the user's comments after vandalizing User:Chacor and User talk:Chacor. Please note that vandalism warnings have been removed from his talk page. (→Netscott) 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked by Irishguy for 24h. Let's see what their attitude would be after coming back. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rajsingam (talk · contribs) using profanity in my userpage

Resolved

This user has used the words Fuck you on my user page, this user has violated many other wikipedia policies in the past and this is not the first time he has been foul mouthed to fellow editors. complete list of violations of policies can be seen at User:Netmonger/RfC, this is a previous Request for comment which was failed because the certifying editors signed in the wrong place, after the deletion of the Rfc, the affected editors collectively decided not to pursue the case any further, assuming the user will not resort to such methods again. But this hasn't been the case. I hope the administrators will take prompt action in this regard. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

82.153.51.122 / Peniel Pentacostal Church

Could admin attention be applied to 82.153.51.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This user, whose IP traces to "Peniel Church", is making non-constructive edits to Peniel Pentecostal Church, despite multiple warnings and being in breach of WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Peniel Pentecostal Church. Tearlach 18:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:BabyDweezil

• Moved to WP:CN for community input per the new policy. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Personal attacks on a user talk page

Please see my previous posts. All I'm asking is that the purposeful misspellings of the name be corrected, and the section heading be reverted to what it was originally. I think Curiouscdngeorge just needs to see that other people do not agree with his behavior. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a WARNING, you will be reported Ragib for Systematically following me and Vandalizing the articles I worked on

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

<extensive copy of content from reporting user's talk page deleted, Sandstein 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)>

Atulsnischal 21:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just a continuation of the harrassment by this user. Already reported above at WP:ANB/I#Atulsnischal_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_reported_by_Ragib. --Ragib 21:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Atulsnischal, this isn't the Wikipedia department of complaints. If you have an issue with Ragib that you feel needs to be resolved, seek dispute resolution. No violations of policy have been committed such that administrator intervention would be required. You need to discuss this. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite. And no need to disrupt this forum by copying lengthy sections of your talk page here, either. If you have problems with one another, please see WP:DR. Sandstein 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

B2bomber81 (talk · contribs)

• B2bomber81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Abuse of power, intimidation of new user including baseless accusations and harrassment. --Memejojo 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  — Memejojo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tuxide 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs please?--Crossmr 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your message at User talk:B2bomber81 and User talk:Tuxide, please be reminded that only administrators can impose cooling off periods. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Memejojo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is just a strange user in general—I don't mean to personally attack him, but he is new (assuming he's not a sockpuppet) and I don't understand his actions. He undoes WP:MOSHEAD edits on Best Buy claiming it's vandalism [9], edits others comments on his own talk page claiming that they slow down the server [10], and then decides to impose a 24 hour cooling off period on me and User:B2bomber81 [11] [12]. His account isn't even 24 hours old, and he can't even spell harassment correctly. Any advice on how B2bomber81 and I should deal with him would be appreciated. I was going to bring this up on WP:WQA but now that he's gone here I'll let it resolve on this board. Regards, Tuxide 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see on his user talk page that he's being suspected of being a Momoj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) sock. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Memejojo for convenience; although it looks like it has already been denied because it is that obvious. Tuxide 22:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All the evidence for harrassment is there for the public to see. The cooling off period is requested in order to allow the new user to participate in peace with the Wikipedia community. The above user Tuxide seeks to make inflammatory statements however there is no evidence that the user is "strange." That would be personal opinion however it is not personal opinion that harrassment and vandalism of a user's, that is fact. This is the forum to resolve this not on content pages and we are all grateful that the users in question can be civil about this. Thanks and good luck. --Memejojo 00:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make the suggestion that Tuxide refrain from editing posts from other user by adding the small font mini signature that targets specific users. This is clearly intimidation and harrassment and it is surprising to some degree that it continues here on the administrators page. Besides the user in dispute is B2bomber81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I respect and encourage any users making productive comments regarding this issue. --Memejojo 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of the {{spa}} template is common procedure in cases like this, and like Tuxide I feel that it is appropriate here. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To state that new users have contributed to 1 article. Well isn't that something to be expected. How can one write more if they are dealing with harassment? Let's have some guidance about that from more admins. It is a healthy conversation to have and I am willing to spend as many months as it takes to resolve these issues as long as all involved also communicate in this forum in good faith. Thanks and good luck. --Memejojo 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I referred to Memejojo as a new user based on his creation log, not based on his count log. However, I don't believe that this user is new to wikipedia. I do suspect that he is a sockpuppet of blocked users Momoj and Jomomm (verified sockpuppets). My basis for this suspicion? Firstly, their names are quite similar. Secondly, Memejojo being a "new member" immediately started flaming other editors for editing his contribution to the Best Buy page. He repeated infers ownership of the article by "daring" anyone to make changes to his contributions without permission, or simply reverts the edits. I have already submitted a checkuser request for this user to determine if it is indeed a sockpuppet or not.

His last contribution included a biased comment that I requested be left out. He refused, and so I removed his contribution, asking that he refrain from reintroducing to the article until there was a consensus on the content of his contribution. I suggested he could either agree to leave his opinions out of the article or find a reliable source for his claims. I will note that Tuxide also recommended that an alternate source be used. Memejojo responded with another revert and said there is no lack of consensus.

Lastly, as Tuxide eluded to, this user is just plain strange. He refers to himself in a third person almost as if he is actually representing several people, as well as falsely representing himself as an administrator. At one point he tried to verbally impose a 24-hour cool off period on me until Tuxide reminded him that he was not an admin. He has also taken it upon himself to edit other users talk pages to remove threads that he feels aren't appropriate in his opinion. I appreciate the admins taking the time to look into this matter. B2bomber81 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to correct the course this is going and to clarify what this post is about. It is about the harrassment of a new user. It is not about what certain users wish were true but it is about what is actually true. I do not believe the admins who view this forum are swayed by false accusations. If there is concrete evidence for flamming, daring/taunting, sockpuppetry etc. let them present the evidence here and in the open. You'd think I was the devil or something. There is simply no evidence of this. One thing is for sure since opening this request for mediation B2bomber81 has ceased harrassment. I admit Tuxide used very colorful and passionate language but this forum should be reserved for facts and not rhetoric. --Memejojo 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So you add a new section to Best Buy, only to come to this board when someone else wants your own edits to comply to WP:MOSHEAD, and labeling him as a vandal. Your posts make absolutely no sense to me; it may as well be disputed whether WP:POINT applies here because I have no idea what the heck you're trying to prove. Tuxide 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I added more information under an already existing category which is of course fully compliant with all wikipedia standards. I am a new member and will continue to make contributions. I have found many editors inviting. Tuxide seems to be the only one confused by wikipedia standards but as a community we will help him/her become a more productive member. This forum is a good place to air out differences and I am very very pleased with the results which is a stop to the harrassment. I now feel like this community is worth my time and effort. I hope this shows that through civil discourse people online can come together to form a great product which is Wikipedia. --Memejojo 23:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to remain civil, and please do not belittle an established editor like Tuxide by calling him/her "confused by wikipedia standards" and by saying the he/she needs help to "become a more productive member." Aecis^Brievenbus 00:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've applied the duck test and blocked Memejojo for being a sockpuppet of Momoj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (as referenced on his talk page) as well as continuing the same tedentious editting practices that also led to an indefinte block on the original account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice job guys, thank you for your assistance! B2bomber81 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Simmintelkeree

Resolved

I just found this RfA and it's full of forged signatures supporting Simmintelkeree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I was going to request speedy deletion, but I didn't know if this warranted another block. John Reaves (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef and RfA deleted. Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So many support votes forged, and he didn't include me... What have I done wrong? :'( Aecis^Brievenbus 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi, I have reported this user, 65.189.189.23, for repeated disruption of Wikipedia because of personal attacks on other users about their inappropriate signature. Could you please block this user? --68.111.92.229 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

None of those edits looks like a personal attack, to me. Corvus cornix 00:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

self-identifying sockpuppets, block requested

170.215.40.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) signs as the indef blocked VacuousPoet (talk · contribs · block log) here: [13]. 170.215.40.207 then edits the userpage of StudyAndBeWise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), identifying him as a sock of VacuousPoet: [14].

VacuousPoet has already been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs · block log). Could someone block the new socks as appropriate? (For more details, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd) and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VacuousPoet.) --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Need a spam ruling from an admin

Could someone make the call where links to Tiny Mix Tapes are spam? User:Mangle is adding this link to a large number of pages, but argues it's a legitimate review site. The site does contain a lot of advertising. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Has no obvious authority, so why would anyone link it anyway? Guy (Help!) 18:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely sure why being an admin asserts any more authority over the subject at hand than a regular editor, but I would say it's spam. It doesn't have any authority; it's just like Purevolume links: they're there to be there. Shadow1 (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• You may find the relevant guideline useful. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The site does not contain a lot of advertising. It now has three banners, but, before that, the site operated for several years with absolutely no ads whatsoever. And, it should be noted, the ads in question are music related (it's a music journalism website). It should also be noted that Popmatters and Pitchfork contain far more ads than three. I only added links to tinymixtapes in the "professional reviews" catagory for albums, as the reviews on TMT are the hallmark of professional. I never just spam linked the basic site link. I only provided relevant content to specific albums. I deeply object to the association of Tiny Mix Tapes as spam. It is a professional music journalism website and should be allowed to be mentioned along side other professional reviews.--Mangle 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The above editor has admitted to a conflict of interest but fails to see how that should matter. He seems to think that since he linked to individual pages all over as opposed to the main page of the website, that somehow makes it not spam. I happen to disagree. IrishGuy ^talk 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an editor for tinymixtapes, or any publication for that matter. And I fail to see how adding professional reviews under the professional reviews catagory is spamming. IF you don't want people to post professional reviews, don't have a professional reviews catagory in albums.--Mangle 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mangle, the problem I have with linking to Tiny Mix Tapes is that you haven't shown it to be a notable web site, in accordance with our policies. I looked into it a bit, and couldn't find anything to change my mind. You can read our web site notability guidelines here. While that is specifically for articles about websites, in my mind it would also apply to external links of this type. If someone wrote a review of an album on a blogspot blog and linked to it in an album's infobox here, I think we'd all agree that most editors would object to including it. In the absence of evidence that Tiny Mix Tapes is a notable or respected website providing reviews, it should be treated the same way, I'm afraid. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, he got blocked for spamming. I ended up pulling out about 120 links by Mangle dating back to December. Pretty much all his edits here have been to insert those links into articles. As far as I am concerned, that is the definition of spam even if the site had some notability to it. IrishGuy ^talk 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• TMT reviews are syndicated through Metacritic, which meets WP:WEB criterion 3. Tiny Mix Tapes, especially its playlist generator, have been featured in reliable media as well. [15] and discussed in a scholarly journal[16]. For further reference, Definitive Jux (home to Aesop Rock, RJD2), Young God (Devandra Banhart, Angels Of Light), Type Records (Midaircondo, Xela), Saddle Creek (Bright Eyes), Benbecula (Christ., Frog Pocket), and Madlib's Stones Throw, all very prominent independant labels, as well as Kill Rock Stars band Deerhoof (as seen here)all reprint tinymixtapes reviews the same as Pitchfork, among many others. The reason none of this was spam is because I only added those link to the sections entitled "professional reviews." I strongly believe Tiny Mix Tapes to be a professional review source, and placing those reviews along side allmusic and pitchfork in the proper catagory on album pages is the very definition of what wikipedia is supposed to be about... good, comprehensive content.--Mangle 03:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't a reason it wasn't spam. It was spam. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI again as you don't seem to understand the policies. You are associated with the site. You made widescale edits to various articles where your only addition was a link to the site you are affiliated with. That is spam. IrishGuy ^talk 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean, I created album pages that otherwise would not exist, complete with tracklisting, then added a link to a tinymixtapes review under the prefabricated "professional reviews" heading. That's called content, not spam. Good call. By the way, I wouldn't call adding one link a "widescale edit." You are exaggerating.--Mangle 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, you created exactly two articles...and, of course, made sure that tinymixtapes.com was the only review linked. Other than that, you placed links to tinymixtapes.com in at least 120 other articles. Yes, that is widescale spamming. IrishGuy ^talk 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In 120 other articles under the "professional reviews" catagory, linking to professional articles relevant to the artist = content. And I didn't "make sure" TMT was the only review linked. I just didn't put any others down. The other million Wiki editors are free to add Pitchfork or whatever they want to the pages I created. Quite frankly, I don't know how to "make sure" TMT is the only review linked.--Mangle 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have explained WP:COI and WP:SPAM to you countless times. You cannot link to a site you are associated with and claim it isn't spamming. It is. It isn't adding content, it is advertising reviews you wrote. IrishGuy ^talk 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So then what is the professional reviews catagory for? For not having content?--Mangle 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me exactly what parts of WP:COI and WP:SPAM you are having trouble understanding. IrishGuy ^talk 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what the professional reviews catagory in album articles is for.--Mangle 04:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So once again, you attempt to deflect the fact that you have willfully violated WP:COI and WP:SPAM by adding 120+ links to a website that you are affiliated with. IrishGuy ^talk 08:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince Godfather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Falsifying copyright info, OTRS info

Resolved

In this section, I am not using the term, "fraudulent", in any legal sense. I believe it is the best description of the actions described. Prince Godfather (talk · contribs), after being blocked several times before for copyright violations, was caught placing false OTRS permission information on the following images:

• Image:Rajini in spain.jpg
• Image:252157716 887607f66c.jpg
• Image:Vijaytamil.jpg

Given this user's history and given that there are numerous other images with either dubious or obviously deliberately fraudulent information (for example, Image:Shriyanew.JPG has a fraudulent email exchange copy-and-pasted and slightly edited from Image:Asinthottumkal.JPG), I have blocked this user indefinitely and plan on deleting all image uploads from this user. Given that we know we cannot trust the information this user provides, I believe it is safest for Wikipedia simply to ditch all the images.

I am sorry to have to have taken these steps but in my opinion, the actions of this user have placed the Wikipedia in danger. I welcome any constructive comments about this situation. --Yamla 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I support this move. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yep, absolutely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good block. Jkelly 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, that's the second time I've seen this. Please block aggressively for this sort of activity; it's wilfully and deliberately malicious. Shimgray | talk | 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Total support. -- Nick ^t 22:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As a photographer myself I appreciate your aggressive pursuit of copyright issues. Just a comment here, when I give permission to use my artwork, I send one of half-a-dozen form responses, and I send them from various names/websites, depending upon where the request originated. However, it appears you have handled this correctly by contacting the sites, rather than making an assumption, and erring towards deletion (they can be uploaded again if necessary). In the end, though, it doesn't matter, the user had already been banned from editing Wikipedia under another name. Again, I do appreciate your working to honor others' copyright by deleting all of the images uploaded by this user. People think a camera makes everyone a photographer, so pictures on the Internet are up for grabs--neither assumption should be part of Wikipedia. KP Botany 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have protected Prince Godfather's talk page for abusing of the unblock template and also for making legal threats on his talk page while blocked. [17]. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved that there has been no violation of WP:COI -- Avi 08:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and claims of COI

A small set of editors have been making an increasing number of personal attacks on me, claiming that I have some sort of unspecific conflict of interest, and that they therefore can revert my edits. Most recently I have even been called a "POV pusher" (with a conflict of interest) in an edit summary. [18] This follows on the heels of similar accusations from a small number of editors. [19] [20] I'm a fairly patient editor, but this constant abuse of the WP:COI guidelines as a way of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF really needs to stop. If you throw enough mud, some of it eventually sticks, so I'm going to nip this process in the bud by applying educational blocks to editors who falsely claim WP:COI in the future. Just letting everyone know. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what they think the "conflict of interest" is based on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally have no idea, but COI has been the "new sexy policy" editors have been trying to enforce. I have no idea when it first started, but I did see some applications of it around December of last year. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious. Jayjg is passionate about improving Wikipedia , yet he none the less edits it in a direct conflict of interest. You can't edit what you deeply care about and for him this includes all of Wikipedia. For shame Jayjg. WAS 4.250 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point, and yet I am unrepentant. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely nonsense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Anyone can have an area of expertise and should certainly edit in those areas as long as they follow Wikipedia policy. Should Colonel Saunders be editing the Kentucky Fried Chicken page? No. Is this the same thing? No. Elizmr 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if Colonel Sanders turns up to edit from the grave, we should consider letting him since I'm not sure he'd be violating COI either being that he is no longer in a position to benefit financially or otherwise. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless of course he faked his own death, moved to Belize, and has taken a discrete but significant cut of KFC's profit every year since. In that case he should be blocked on sight.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're going to block people who you are in a conflict with? Isn't that, you know, a conflict of interest? Hbdragon88 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

COI occurs when making an article biased would lead to personal gain (e.g. money for some quackery treatment, votes for politicians). I cannot see how Jayjg editing the Ahmedinejad article would achieve that. JFW | T@lk 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hbdragon was using "conflict of interest" in a manner different from WP:COI; he was using it as a way of pointing out Wikipedia's policy that you do not use administrative functions on editors with whom you are in conflict. You ask others to investigate and take appropriate action. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is that it's obvious that Jay's supposed "conflict of interest" is that he is Jewish. Jay is an editor, not an ethnicity, and trolls other editors who can't or won't make that distinction need such "educational blocks" in order to make that perfectly clear. <<-armon->> 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

More nonsense from Gerash. Not surprising seeing as he called me a racist on this very noticeboard for noting that Iran does not play cricket, as well as accusing me of perpetrating "Zioattacks". In any case, by Gerash's reasoning, he may be in CoI himself on the MA article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this attacking of good editors making good edits under the guise of WP:COI seems to be a violation of WP:CIVIL and [[WP:AGF]. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see how you establish Jayjg as a Jew. His user page does not say that he is, so unless he stated it elsewhere, I do not know how you reach this conclusion.

What I do know from my experiences with Jayjg is that he doesn't usually AGF and can be somewhat uncivil ('snappy'). I can provide diffs for these problems if you need them, but looking at the archives for Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be easier & more informative, since they are rather lengthy conversations. I'm no expert, but I think this won't happen if he becomes more respectful towards other users. He assumed bad faith by writing off other users as "apologists," and often justified his editing as counteracting these supposed apologists. While it is possible that some users may be apologists, to assume that that they are is not AGF, and acting based upon this assumption yield edits that are controversial to editors who do not agree with this assumption. I did ask him once to back up his "apologist" assertion. He provided some diffs, but the only example that made sense was for User:Sarastro777, who barely edits there anyway. Even if some editors are apologists, that should not justify edits; as Jossi quoted, and I now paraphrase, 'address the edit not the editor'. Jayjg would also make insinuative comments (insinuative towards me as an editor), but when I tried to address this incivility, he would hide behind the "talk about the article content" line. It makes no sense that I should be attacked, but not allowed to defend myself, and that he gave me the whole "talk about the article content" thing is just hypocritical since I was simply responding to his not-content insinuations. So, in sum, he should simply drop this practice of making edits in response to perceived "apologists."

Also, Jayjg should try to reach consensus with those who he is in disagreement with rather than simply insisting that he is right for his own reasons, and then enforcing his own opinion on how the article should be. In other words, he should be more compromising when discussing with other editors.

Another point, that is minor but I found amusing, is citing "per talk" when there is no consensus on the talk page for the action [21]. The problem, of course, being that the consensus simply wasn't there. He had been against the 'Easter Egg', but should not remove it simply because he didn't like it, and he definitely should not edit per a talk page not authorizing consensus on the matter. It became clear that he did not like it, not for being an 'Easter Egg', but because it linked to the section that explained the translation issue. This is clear because he was willing to keep the link only if it pointed to a different spot.

While I am sure Jayjg is probably a great editor in general, he has had issues on at least the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page. I urge you other administrators not to let him give "educational" bans to the various editors who he has had conflicts. Obviously, they reached some conclusions & expressed them inappropriately (as far as COI goes), but it would be unfair to punish them for their statements while leaving Jayjg 'uneducated'.

Calling other editors "apologists" is itself an accusation of COI, akin to those accusations against Jayjg that led to this ANI. For one, Jayjg should not give any of the these proposed bans himself. More importantly, if the editors who have unfairly accused Jayjg of COI are given "educational" bans, Jayjg should also be given an "educational" ban of length greater than or equal to theirs for his "apologist" accusations (and other AGF violations) because they too were unfair accusations of COI & bad faith.

I hope Jayjg reads this & considers improving his behavior in the ways I have touched upon here. Thanks. The Behnam 03:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I hope he ignores all of it; it's a very out-of-place diversion from the original point, which is that of improper allegations of conflict of interest. Regarding the "educational blocks", handle it like I've handled other editor's allegations of vandalism: I first made it clear to him that unjustified accusations of vandalism constitute personal attacks; after a bit more of it, I said explicitly that the next time he called someone a vandal and I disagreed, I'd block him for 30 days (he'd already been blocked more than once for incivility and personal attacks, so the long period was justified.) The next time I saw him referring to other editors (in this case, Blnguyen was one, as it turned out), I invoked the block I'd warned him about. He's whining and claiming abuse, but that's hardly surprising. Unjustified accusations of COI are not as extreme as unjustified accusations of vandalism, but they are still tantamount to personal attacks if not backed up with copious proof. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is plenty relevant. Jayjg falls into the same group of 'improper COI allegers' and therefore should be 'educated' along with them. The Behnam 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether Jay is or isn't Jewish, it's that the editors harassing him think so. That is, unless you're suggesting that maybe they think he's a Christian Zionist. This seems unlikely to me. Being an "apologist" usually entails making excuses, and is not the same as a COI. <<-armon->> 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where the Jew versus Christian Zionist dichotomy comes from. I have seen a dichotomy on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page form that is basically "ZioAttackers" versus "Ahmadinejad Apologists" (to use each sides' disparaging description of the other). Anyway, "Apologist" is how he described us, and it is much more than simply making excuses. If we are "apologists" for Ahmadinejad, we have an obvious conflict of interest with the neutral editing policy, because as apologists we want to make Ahmadinejad look good & refute/downplay criticism of him, which aren't neutral goals. This is the basic reason behind considering the accusation of "apologist" akin to the accusation of COI. And from there, it only is right that Jayjg be 'educated' for the same wrongdoing. The Behnam 04:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The issues you are describing are relevant to POV rather than COI. I've seen these COI accusations thrown around and completely agree that they contradict WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg and I have often disagreed about an edit, but in my experience he has always based his position on Wikipedia policy or good style. As with all Wikipedians there are some areas in which he has greater expertise than others. But I have never seen a conflict of interest and I have never seen him push a particular POV - at most I have seen valid disagreements over what may constitute NPOV, a reliable source, or relevance to an article that can easily be resolved through discussion ... this is thus most mundane fodder of editing ... Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is rather transparent that a group of editors (none of whom have any kind of importance in the eyes of the community) are attempting to engage in a character assassination of another wikipedian solely on the back of a baseless charge that they are trying to proof by assertion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this kind of disparaging comment about the other users really necessary? Of course there are a lot of people who like Jayjg. But it seems there are also users who do not like him. What you just wrote seems kind of no-value-added. What does "trying to proof by assertion" mean anyway? What are you referring to? The Behnam 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It means that your only "proof" is the fact that you keep saying it and hope people will eventually listen.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, seems that you are accusing me of trying to 'assassinate his character'. That is a very rude accusation, and of course that is not my aim. I haven't provided diffs or pointers to specific conversations because I felt that most of the editors who have been involved at this ANI post are well capable of going to the archives for Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. My details are in those conversations with Jayjg, but he mostly ignored or avoided responding to the feedback. Am I mistaken? Would you like me to point you in the right direction? Was your rude & accusing statement here an indirect way of asking me for specific links? Or would you rather I not? The Behnam 08:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I now see that WP:COI is much more specific in its scope than 'conflict of interest' is in general usage. I think that these people are improperly alleging COI because they don't realize that COI applies pretty much just to company & autobiographical situations. In that case I definitely take back my conclusion that Jayjg is an 'improper COI alleger', though the situations I brought up still constitute at least a consistent violation of AGF without any regard to repeated requests to AGF & be civil (on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad). Perhaps this is a common mistake? I believe I have seen other people refer to the policy when describing 'general' usage elsewhere on Wikipedia. Anyway, knowing this, I think that the people should receive good explanations as to why they are wrong in their COI claims before something severe like 'educational' blocks are applied. Their problems with with Jayjg seem to be, in reality, about perceived POV/bias matters, so they should simply receive an explanation as to why they are improperly classifying their issue. Unless they actually think that Jayjg has some sort of autobiographical, corporate, government, etc affiliation. Then they should bring real proof or completely drop the charges. In sum, the COI allegations could easily be mistakes over the scope of COI, so the 'educational' block seems unnecessary, harsh, and will not actually fix the problem. And, if it is done by Jayjg, will be a blatant abuse of power. The Behnam 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have actually read WP:COI before commenting on it; what do you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that what you just wrote is another example of you being disrespectful. I already realized I was mistaken and corrected myself; your 'suggestion' is not appreciated. What is the deal; are you trying to be rude or something? The Behnam 05:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is that "conflict of interest" must mean more than "has an opinion about something". Else we are all barred from editing everything. If Jay's "conflict of interest" is that he generally supports Israel and dislikes Ahmadinejad, then the accusations are meaningless. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they seem to be mistaken in confusing a bias claim with conflict of interest. How does this warrant 'educational' blocks? How do those blocks educate them? A good explanation is much better. Perhaps Jayjg is frustrated with their improper claims, but I simply do not see what a block will do other than provoke them & cause more conflict. Of course, he'd win out in any such conflict (since he is 'important in the eyes of the community'), but the aim should be to encourage other editors to mend their ways rather than provoke them into a graver violation. Doesn't always work (User:Kiumars), but a better start than this apparently useless 'education'. The Behnam 15:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

These editors are long-term violators who are unrepentant in their attacks. Education, entreaties and admonitions have already failed. Escalating the consequence is the next logical step. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, this seems like another example of when people cannot get their POV pushed across wikipedia (and rightfully so), they engage in trying to destroy the credibility of the wiki guardian in order to eliminate the obstacle to their attempted violations. I will agree that Jay, at times, has ben curt. But who wouldn't be if they were the target of as much improper accusations, allegations, argumentum ad hominem, name-calling, and other nonsense. I think we can all agree Jay is human, and has bad days as well as good ones. But looking at his overall prodigious wiki history (including ArbCom) there are FEW editors in wikipedia who have done more to KEEP the balance, the peace, and uphold the guidelines and policies of wiki than Jayjg. Unfortunately, the bigger the target, the easier it is to fling garbage at it :( -- Avi 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not expecting you, Humus and others, not to defend Jayig, however, editors have noted that Jayig routinely ignores the talk page, and edits the article as he wishes, leaving "per talk" in the edit summary. As an example despite most of the editors agreed that dispute on translation should be included, he removed it, citing "per talk". Although Avi and all others users and admins have a POV, but they never tried to use their admin status to intimidate editors of Ahmadinejad article, which is why no one seem to get in conflict with them. Also, while a POV and hence "conflict of interest" (general term, not WP:COI) is OK, one should ask why is it that only Jayig is always being accused of. Obviously its not his religion and ethnicity, as he might share that with Avi and others, but his constant defamation of Ahmadinejad, whom he sees as an obvious monster, not worthy of any "apologist".--Gerash77 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I agree that this assertion of COI is invalid. -Will Beback · † · 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Huge number of redirects

Redirects are cheap but do we need so many of them as in : [22]? Alex Bakharev 11:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 12:05Z

Ha ha ha ha Merbabu 12:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwern (talk · contribs) seems to be running a bot (User:Gwern/Bot) that's creating redirects with all permutations of case variations with edit summaries saying articles are linking to them, but I don't see those articles. Also it seems to be buggy, creating loops or indirect redirects and creating redirects starting with "!" (was that supposed to be a blacklist thing?). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 12:10Z

And many of the redirects are doubles and/or malformatted (so that they aren't detected as redirects). --ais523 12:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I rouged them up a little. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be happening again... --Delirium 04:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

One title has more than 500 different spellings. ww2censor 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

From February's dump, Wikipedia has as many articles as redirects. I always wondered how that was possible. Now I know :-) -- ReyBrujo 04:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism threat

At this AFD, User:512theking says if we delete his brother's page he'll go back to vandalizing just like I did in the good old days. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That was said months ago and was indef blocked. What's new about that? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This edit was made days ago...not months ago. --Onorem 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Onorem. I see. Well, i've just blocked the IP for a week as a sock of banned user 512theking. There's nothing more we can do at this stage i believe. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not again... These socks are a pain-in-the-rear because the user uploads copyrighted images from various accounts. I guess I'll make my rounds on numerous Pennsylvania-highway-related pages to check for copyvios soon.... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, if anyone finds suspicious images uploaded on any Pennsylvania (or New Jersey) routes that are from newer users, please let me know on my talk page. I can run these by several people (respective owners of the copyrights) who can determine if they are copyright vios or not. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Smeelgova archiving out recent material relevant to BabyDweezil case

Hi. Could someone please talk to Smee and ask him to stop archiving out two-day-old talk page material that may have some bearing on BabyDweezil's case for community ban. He is edit warring over it with me and I would imagine that, if nothing else, you would not archive out material that another editor wants to reamin. That seems like basic good manners irrespective of the BabyDweezil issue which makes the warring even odder appearing still. See [23]. Thanks --Justanother 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• This particular user has a history of violating Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, and has been warned about it by myself and other third-party editors. As to archiving the talk page, it was an old thread, and there is now an archive for old material. If User:Justanother or any other user wishes to begin a new discussion, they can do so by starting a new subject heading on the talk page. Smee 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Smee, you are the only one posting phony PA warnings on my page and this is not about me, this is about archiving a talk page prematurely and against the wishes of another editor during discussion of sanctioning an 3rd editor for actions associated with that article. What is the world are you thinking? --Justanother 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Smeelgova is hardly the only one who's concerned about Justanother's personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and persistent disruption. On the contrary, he may be the only person left who thinks that asking you to follow the rules here has any chance of success. Are you trying to prove him wrong? --FOo 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• User:Justanother has also been warned previously for disrupting the ANI process. Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block. Smee 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

It's just common sense that editors are free to unarchive archived talkpage material if they have reasonable cause to want it kept on the live page. It's not an action to revert, let alone edit war over. Please don't revert JA's unarchiving, Smeelgova. WP:NOT a battleground. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

• Sigh, alright. I will revert it. Smee 20:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Sigh, indeed! Thanks Bishonen. --Justanother 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

New edit war at Giulio Clovio

I'm edit warring at Giulio Clovio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where GiorgioOrsini (talk · contribs) and BarryMar (talk · contribs) are inserting unsourced (or very poorly sourced) claims & adding their personal comments to the body of the article.

The issue has been brought up here before (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive184#Slow-pace edit-war at Giulio Clovio).

I don't provide any diffs to the edits because it's basically a constant back-and-forth revert war: choose any recent revert example from the article's history :-)

In the article's talk page, either see Talk:Giulio Clovio#Latest changes (quite long, but pretty focused), or simply concentrate in its "On Clovio's origin" & "On GiorgioOrsini's sentence" sub-sections.

Any help (like fully protecting the article or at least making a few short comments) would be more than welcome :-)

Thanks already. Best regards, Ev 02:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protection requests should be made at WP:RFPP. —ptk✰fgs 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This goes beyong the scope of a mere page protection. GiorgioOrsini (talk · contribs) has been edit warring about this article for months in a row. I have suggested in the past for him to try dispute resolution to no avail. I would appreciate if another admin can take a look at this as I would rather not having to use the tools myself in this instance. --Asterion^talk 08:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Party to Free Republic RFAr recruiting accounts / meatpuppets on Free Republic

I am currently in an RFAr on Free Republic, as is user DeanHinnen. Several people have documented and concluded that user DeanHinnen and his banned sockpuppet 'brother' BryanFromPalatine are one in the same. This article where his puppetry and legal threats made headlines, Wikipedia Sockpuppet Theatre, for instance. Dean/Bryan posted on on Free Republic earlier today soliciting new accounts and puppets. - "Does anyone here need a better reason to open an account at Wikipedia?" I request protection for the article, and action on Hinnen's puppet solicitation. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts Dean/Bryan's FR post] - FaAfA (yap) 02:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an Arbitration matter and should be deferred to injunctions as part of arbitration. Please ask for an injunction or a remedy on the Arbitration workshop page. --Tbeatty 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. An injunction is what is called for at this point. --BenBurch 03:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note In that post, Dino reveals himself to be BRYAN, who is Indefblocked already. Apparently he's discarded the fiction the two are brothers. I will ask for an injunction and immediate enforcement of BryanFromPalantine's indefblock I misread his sentences, but please note, Bryan admits that DeanHinnen is acting as his proxy on this matter. SirFozzie 03:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (Corrected statement, SirFozzie 03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

Tbeatty is correct that a motion may be made or proposed findings suggested on the arbitration workshop page. SirFozzie, please be more specific about where in the article you believe there is an admission that Dean is Bryan. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

See my corrected statement, Brad. I have struck through the statement, and apologize for the misstatement. I have posted a request for an injunction on the Arb Workshop page. SirFozzie 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No surprise that Bryan wouold do this; he is already banned. The evidence that Dean=Bryan is on a web site we would not normally consider a reliable source for articles. I will try to make Fred aware of the situation as he is getting ready to write the proposed decision. Thatcher131 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally...the proposed decision. The evidence and workshop pages have become such a mess that it is an eyesore whenever I try to read it. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Brad - I posted there earlier today about what I felt was another legal threat from Dean/Bryan and it didn't get a peep - so I thought it better to post this here. I reposted this to the RFAr workshop and evidence talk pages too. - FaAfA (yap) 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been warning all of the parties for weeks that the evidence and workshop pages would be rendered useless if everyone didn't control the quantity of verbiage. At this point, at Thatcher131 says, a proposed decision will soon appear and the case will be close to finishing up. Newyorkbrad 03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It would help if it was completely silent during the voting phase of the case. However, some may just cry "arbitrator abuse" or the like... --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

UH-OH! Too late! I hope Fred has a good sense of humor! LOL! - FaAfA (yap) 03:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops. :) --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

75.24.220.143 (talk · contribs)

Thread retitled from "Vandalism".

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.24.220.143 This guy is vandalizing pages. DanDixon 05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by another admin. You'll want to report them to WP:AIV after the appropriate warnings. -- Gogo Dodo 05:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, this one's a little different

68.98.50.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to make useful edits but also pretty regular vandalism. That could be a sign of different users at the IP, but I don't think so. The vandalism isn't at the "poop" and "penis" level, it's actually a tiny bit clever; and twice when I've called him on it he's responded on my talk page in a light-hearted manner, essentially saying that his vandalism should be accepted because it's funny. In a way, this makes him a more dangerous vandal than the poop/penis crowd, or the X-is-hooooot crowd, whose vandalisms can easily be spotted. But he doesn't do it often enough to justify a report on AIV. So what should I do about it? Zsero 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the diffs, it seems like an Irish-American knowing Russian well and Japanese lightly, with a fascination for guns and fire, racist, with a weird sense of humor, from Arizona. You realize I'm not gonna sleep at all well tonight?

Seriously, gotta be more than a couple people, at least one of which knows Russian and is helpful. Prove me wrong, however, and I won't sleep well at night. :) Shenme 08:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check requested

Resolved

Howdy folks, I'm participating in a DRV and would like a quick sanity check on something. An article I speedy deleted on Jan 19 has been brought up for deletion review, and that's fine. We can't get 'em all right, and if it was an error, best it be resolved. But I'm perceiving an odd belligerence from another admin in the discussion, and I'd like to know if it's my imagination or not. The specific discussion is at this deletion review, and the admin in question is Night Gyr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). If I need a knock on the head, well, that's good feedback too I suppose. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite as hostile as someone else who was similarly unhappy with a deletion of mine, but yeah, a little unnecessarily belligerent. So what? Grandmasterka 07:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being overly sensitive. Perhaps you were a little overzealous with this speedy delete, perhaps not. In borderline cases it is a good idea to ask for a second opinion, one way of doing this is to tag the article and let some other administrator delete it. But I don't think you did anything that was clearly out of line - provided this is not something that happens to you on a pretty regular basis, in which case, I would invest some self-reflection, just to make sure you're not growing a bit "trigger happy" with speedy deletes. I also think that by insisting on justifying your actions to the other admin, you were acting defensive and not letting the matter rest, which contributed to the other admin putting his/her guard up. This is really quite a small matter, no harm done on either side, you should probably just let it be. --woggly 07:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but for the record, I didn't post anything until the admin in question said "Overturn, invalid speedy. The article needed sources, but nothing was atrocious and it wasn't even tagged. Unnecessary unilateral action. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:46,", so he established his tone before I made a peep, but I appreciate the feedback. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[Thread refactored]

The topic and header of this request has been refactored and removed per this Arbitration ruling/request. The content of this thread has been forwarded to the Arbitration Committee per their explicit request in the aforementioned. I respectfully ask that no user continues this discussion here or elsewhere.

The user that was blocked has been unblocked by Zscout370, presumably pending pending a ruling by the Arbitration Committee on the status of their editing abilities. Note that this is neither an endorsement nor a disapproval on my part towards the block or the unblock, but merely procedural per the Arbitration Committee's expressed wishes.

If you wish to contest my actions in this case, again, can it please not be done here, but rather on my talk page. I also respectfully request that, if an oversight/arbitrator deems it necessary, that the revisions prior to my edit that had the information in this thread be removed from the history. I hope I have everyone's understanding in this case. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have withdrawn the respectful request regarding oversight. As a PS, I have sent an email to ArbCom's mailing list with links to appropriate discussions/information, as well as a copy of the discussion prior to my refactoring. I thank everyone for their understanding whilst the Arbitration Committee deals with this, per their expressed request. As I noted in my email, "[t]he refactoring was done on the basis of the comment by Fred [linked] above, presumably with the idea that [the details] remains private whilst [the Arbitration Committee] decide to do with it. If such an action by me was inappropriate, please forgive me, as I was acting in good faith". The Arbitration Committe has also been directed to the deleted userpage, which - in my opinion - should probably remain deleted pending the AC's input. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Calton's childish behavior

Calton (talk · contribs) is behaving in a manner that makes User:EssJay look good by comparison. Every time I make an edit to the Net Neutrality article, Calton reverts it for no good reason. Generally he uses a pop-up revert, and at other times he does it manually with a misleading comment as to what he did. See any of his edits to this page over the lat two months and you will see one and only one pattern: he reverts all my edits. This person should be banned from Wikipedia. RichardBennett (talk • contribs)

Content dispute - User_talk:RichardBennett#Network_neutrality. Corvus cornix 00:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Slightly more than a content dispute, actually. Bad behavior is evident -- but not in the way RichardBennett claims. Here's RichardBennett's entire article edit history for March. Note the single subject and note especially the language in the edit summaries:

• 21:20, March 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Definitions of Network Neutrality - Restore Bob Kahn definition removed by Google's minion. restore date order)
• 21:17, March 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Sir Tim Berners-Lee - correct deceptive reference to only one side of Berners-Lee's testimony)
• 11:16, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (revert first sentence)
• 11:13, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Over-provisioning - Don't delete Kahn again. The Internet is not a network and that's what Kahn said.)
• 11:05, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (resolve edit confict)
• 11:04, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (Removed scurrilous fact that as a citation was already provided.)
• 10:52, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (Some vandal tried to make the third paragraph misleading and incoherent.)
• 10:46, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of service versus Network Neutrality - clean up the language and purge some of the blatant falsehoods)
• 10:42, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Over-provisioning - Try to make sense out of this turgid spin. There is no "public Internet", there are only transport contracts between networks. The publc Internet was shut down in 1991.)
• 10:31, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of Service and Internet Protocols - re-word phony subjunctive constructions, remove Google-spin)
• 10:27, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of Service and Internet Protocols - Remove optional double-talk and tell the truth)
• 10:25, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of Service and Internet Protocols - explain distinction between public and private networks, and re-write deceptive statements on IP precedence)
• 10:06, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Benefits of non-neutral networks - rv deceptive edit)
• 10:05, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (Clarify deceptive and misleading statement of Kahn's views on fragmentation.)
• 03:00, March 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Over-provisioning - add citation for obvious fact that the Internet is an internet)

The contribution history is full of language like "flagrant lie", "Meatpuppet Calton is doing mischief again", and "Correct some of the gross errors if syntax, fact, and articulation. Not that I expect this formulation to last, as it's much too clear and honest for Wikipedia, but the revert will give me some ammo". --Calton | Talk 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments on the reverts of Calton's edits are honest in nature and mild in tone compared to his: "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt"; "What's this weird obsession with Google?" "Too bad, so sad". I have made substantial contributions to this article, and Calton has done nothing except revert my edits. That's not a content dispute, it's harassment.RichardBennett 01:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the article to include a direct quote of what Kahn actually said in the cited source, if anybody still cares at this point. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced your quote with a fuller quote with more context and clarity. But this is not a content dispute, it's a dispute over one editor who does nothing but revert another editor's contributions, ad hominem. Calton is another EssJay, doing his best to bring Wikipedia into disrepute.RichardBennett 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ad hominem WP:KETTLE? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Calton started the abusive language, not me. Find a single instance in which he/she contributed to the aricle except to revert me. And your recent contributions have assigned the wrong references to quoted material. Please try to be more careful, as you've done it twice how and it's getting tedious to correct your errors.RichardBennett 01:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil during conversations here on AN/I. another editor is trying to help, and your reply is that it's 'tedious to correct [his] errors' is if not outright hostile, dismissive of his efforts. If being helped is tiresome, maybe you should sit back and let others sort this out. ThuranX 02:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My concept of "being helped" doesn't include people mixing up the citations on two different quotes, repeatedly. Block Calton from Net Neutrality and we're done. RichardBennett 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, you probably mean "ban", rather than "block". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken about the citations, but this belongs on the relevant talk page. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Chuck0

Resolved

This user has been warned before for making personal attacks: [24] His latest attack is particularly vicious. He just said this to another user: "Why are you such a fucking retard?" [25] Please do something about this disruptive and abusive individual. Rapartee 07:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attacks by replacing them with {{rpa}}, and I've warned the user. Wodup 08:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually like being a full time nag, but RPA is more controversial than NPA. You don't indicate which of the places you removed attacks. If it's the article talk page, then at least archive the "personal attacks" to the user page. The user's talk page is probably not the best place for any RPA's. Geogre 12:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ray Lopez Sockpuppet

Resolved

Another sockpuppet from multiply indefinite banned troll [User:Ray Lopez]: [User:Curve_Makes_Newberry]

Continuing his campaign of defamation: [26]

Stirling Newberry 08:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

'scone. 〈REDVEЯS〉 09:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney's signature

One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) has today started to sign his name with IRA at the end (linked to his talk page)- see [27] for example. I asked him why he was doing this- but haven't managed to get a direct response yet. I don't think it is appropiate to have the name of a terrorist organisation in an editor's signature. WP:SIG states that a signature must conform to the username policy. It clearly states that Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime) are not allowed. Astrotrain 21:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a terrorist organisation. Thanks. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oy. This is just what we need. One Night In Hackney, is it possible that you could be urged to voluntarily desist from this practice rather than bring about controversy and divisiveness regarding it? Newyorkbrad 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He was asked about it on his talk page. He did not respond positivly. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I engaged in polite discussion with someone who has spent days trolling several pages I am involved in, then he continued it past the point of relevant discussion. For example see the discussion on the Ivor Bell talk page and the related discussion here. Please can someone actually clarify that if the author, title and ISBN number of a book have been provided that is everything that is required for an editor to verify a reference, there is no requirement that the source is available online. Are books not reliable sources any more? One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This has to do with your WP:SIG how?--Isotope23 21:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you maybe give a response as to why you are using IRA in your signature? You must know that people will associate that acronym with a terrorist organisation that is outlawed in the United Kingdom? Astrotrain 21:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He should keep it, why should he change it because Astrotrain doesnt like it, the Irish Republican Army is not a terrorist organisation.--Vintagekits 21:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he could add a date, to make it clear which IRA he's talking about? Many people will think he means a modern paramilitary organisation. There are better ways to educate people about the history of the IRA.DanBeale 12:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Isotope23, I feel it is important to put this situation into perspective. The editor in question has done nothing but troll me for several days, this is nothing but more of the same in my opinion. In reply to Astrotrain, the Irish Republican Army are not a terrorist organisation. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See Harrods#History. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just needlessly divisive. Regarding the contentions of trolling etc, this should be resulting in a user RFC or an AN/I report to deal with it.--Isotope23 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he's a fan of IRAs. --Mperry 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about whether the IRA is a terrorist group or not. This is about the arguments about the nature of the IRA that having this in a sig will inevitably cause.

Does this disrupt Wikipedia? Yes. Is there any good reason to have this in a sig? I'm having trouble seeing any, and the implicit "it's my sig, I can do what I want" don't seem to outweigh "this project is here to build an encyclopedia, please limit your actions here to things that help that goal." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

this is laugable - whatever wikipedia says, the majority of people with the UK see the IRA as a terrorist organisation - it's presence in a signature will only cause unrest and problems - it should be removed ASAP. --Fredrick day 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What's truly laughable on Wikipedia are all the self-important editors running around talking about "disruption" and "problems" when there isn't any. Where are the British citizens wailing and moaning about this user's signature? They, uh, don't exist. Like in so many other "controversies," the actual DISRUPTION is caused by mealy-mouthed editors pulling their own chains and getting into tizzies over NOTHING. MoeLarryAndJesus 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine how this is helpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You trying to draw attention to yourself there MoeLarryAndJesus? You are pretty close to a WP:USERNAME block as is.--Isotope23 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"British Citizens" - well I perfer english gentleman myself... --Fredrick day 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat Fredrick. My signature was temporarily removed (by me) at 21:42 anyway as a gesture of good faith while this is ongoing, and I have since replaced it with something else entirely so we can hopefully draw a line under this whole sorry saga. One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Both the original ("IRA") and revised ("1916") are fairly clear WP:POINT violations. Wikipedia is not a forum for one's political viewpoints. In good faith, per WP:SIG (surprised that isn't policy, btw) and given that the sig suffix is likely to cause disruption, ONIH might consider getting rid of it as an easy solution. Badgerpatrol 12:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1916 isn't "likely to cause disruption", because people won't know what he means by it unless they have prior awareness of this discussion. Lots of things happened in 1916. --Random832 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but it is crystal clear that the only reason he's doing it is to annoy Astrotrain, which is both childish and petulant. And the IRA in Wikipedia are not a terrorist origanisation, assomebody has a bee in their bonnet, but IRA should really be redirecting to the Provisional IRA article, which is what it is most commonly denotes. And the Provos were / are terrorists. Proto ► 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Badgerpatrol that this looks like a pretty clear WP:POINT violation. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. When one's actions are under scrutiny, it's not usually helpful to gratuitously antagonize one's colleagues. Raymond Arritt 06:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the links ONIH provided, regarding on-going content and citation disputes with AstroTrain. While I'm not thrilled with the IRA sig, I do think that this is not a fully 'good faith' submission of a problem, but rather a way for AT to distract ONIH from the disputes. I think that the 1916 is a perfect compromise, and the two should both be focusing on content. This is pretty much a showboating case of system gaming, not unlike Astrotrain's argument that since he can't see a copy of a book to verify it, it's not a clear reference, and shouldn't count. I support the 1916 signature compromise. ThuranX 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I also support the 1916 sig compromise. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought IRA was an acronym of 'I Ran Away'.4kinnel 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring re Magic: The Gathering cards

Thread retitled from "Running combat".

Last one for the night (going to bed) - but take a look at contributions for these two editors:
Mjrmtg (talk · contribs)
A Man In Black (talk · contribs)
Some kind of war going on over gaming card articles. RJASE1 ^Talk 06:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the (dozens of) articles for the various expansions of Magic: the Gathering have lists of "notable cards", linking heavily to the offsite database of cards, but lacking entirely in attribution. They're just someone's idea of which cards in a set are notable, with no real definition of "notable." This kind of thing tends to be a POV and OR magnet, so I went through and started cleaning them up.

Mjrmtg commented on my talk page, rather brusquely, and I explained what I was doing and why, as well as the fact that I wouldn't really mind seeing the lists replaced in part or in whole, if they could be attributed. (I'd really rather see them converted to prose, but sources would be a start in doing that.) Further discussion has seen him accuse me of removing referenced material, with no examples, while he reverts my edits wholesale. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain this one, in case anyone is curious. AMiB removed a whole bunch (read: 90% of the article) from the article of Tiberium. I asked him a bit about it, and it got heated. I explained my personal policy on how I edit articles. There was a fairly-large edit war on the article while he deleted and I restored and tried to add some ad-hoc sources before he'd delete it all again. Once I did that, AMiB checked my user history and removed or moved long-lasting articles I've had a part of. Check the histories on the following articles if you're curious. Ravnica, Concerned, All the articles in Magic: The Gathering sets, Cybran Nation, Aeon Illuminate... Bottom line: AMiB's edits aren't really about any violation. They are about removing almost everything I've done on Wikipedia, because I'm more concerned with good articles than making sure I follow WP:WAF. Scumbag 06:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not following WP:WAF makes the articles worse. They aren't better if you add in-universe info that leaves casual readers scratching their heads on what they were reading. The only group that likes in-universe is the fans, those who have played the game, but teeters on making it inaccessible for everybody else. Hbdragon88 07:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. If you'll look at the history of Tiberium, the bulk of what I've been doing with it (before the edit war, of course), I was removing stuff to make it more understandable to the kind of person that'll view it. With C&C3 coming out soon, it needed to be culled a bit. Not as much as AMiB wanted to do, however. Scumbag 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Both, FYI, have been reported to 3RR for numerous violations. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As lame as this sounds, I think I need to be reported as well, since I did an edit war on Ravnica and Tiberium. Tiberium seems to have stopped though. Scumbag 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic blocked Mjrmtg for 24h and A Man in Black seems to have blocked himself for 31 hrs (that's taking responsibility for your own actions!) Crisis appears averted. Georgewilliamherbert 07:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like time for an article RfC to gauge the best way forward. Everybody seems to be acting in good faith, but with widely differing views of what's needed. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy, but I should point out that it's actually a violation of one of those rules to block yourself. <shrug> It's not a big deal, but one is not supposed to block oneself. Geogre 12:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • • To unblock yourself sure, but to block yourself? What's that violating? Georgewilliamherbert 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor question - would it be okay to revert the edits made by AMiB? He did a lot of damage to a lot of articles that didn't deserve it, and I think it's best if the articles he purged be restored to their original state. Scumbag 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't just blindly revert; it won't hurt to let it settle out, but if you want to start working on cleanup of deletions that worry you, go for it. Georgewilliamherbert 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

AMiB violated 3RR several other times during the past week, claiming that it's because of a guideline that I believed to have proven to not have consensus. And for those articles, on the one that caught my attention, was 8 against him, and he still kept reverting. I would like to see some sort of RfC on AMiB. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For those curious, I set up a thread over at the MTG wikiproject for discussing this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering#Notable cards.2C and set merges.. Seems a better spot than AMiB's talk page. I think that we can all agree that the ideal best outcome would be to have sourced versions of these lists, regardless of whether or not unsourced entries should be removed now or later. SnowFire 03:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

He's back, and already reverting things I've fixed while he blocked himself. Cybran Nation was the first, but I have no doubt he's doing it again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scumbag (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

BLP violation in reference desk question

I have objected several times now to the characterizations made against Howard K. Stern in a Reference Desk question, and have now twice removed libellous attacks against him, but my removals are being reverted - [28]. Could someone please delete the question from the reference desk so that the libel does not continue? Thank you. Corvus cornix 00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at the contribs of Nocternal (talk · contribs) I cannot help thinking that this is one of our perennial troublemakers. Pitching right in with edits on a Matrixism discussion and other such trollery? Not what you'd expect from a genuinely new user. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to reopen Peronal attacks COI discussion,

Allegations of making incivility and personal attacks were made against me in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_and_claims_of_COI. I was not informed of this discussion till after the discussion was closed. I suggest we reopen the discussion to give me the opportunity to answer the allegations against me, expalain the nature of the WP:COI and to allow the community to voice its support or opposition to the educational block Jayjg says he will impose on me. I personally see the repeated threats to block me as a misuse of administrative tools to intimidate editors with an opposing POV. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No one has taken any action against you. What are you concerned about? -- Avi 13:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg stated "I'm going to nip this process in the bud by applying educational blocks to editors who falsely claim WP:COI in the future." I was specifically named in this context. Once the block is in place, I will have no means of raising my questions here. I would also like some clarification about whether an admin is allowed to block a user withwhome he is personally involved in a dispute, and what safeguards exist against admins using their tools to intimidate editors who do not share their point of view. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Once a user has been informed of their misconception/misunderstanding, I believe that improper warnings are considered vandalism, as is gaming the system. So while "educational" may be a poor choice of words, preventing disruptions in the forms of maliciously or conciously misapplying policy for the purposes of, for example, pushing a point of view, whitewashing a target, attacking an editor as opposed to content, would all be valid preventative blocks. Does anyone else disagree? -- Avi 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Administrators are trusted members of the Wikipedia community and are expected to show good judgment. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved

. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, as I described above, while the wording may have been somewhat terse, the concept appears valid - in that blocks to prevent editors' disruptions are allowed and in-process. I would appreciate if other admins chime in on this. -- Avi 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This has the appearance of forum shopping. Abu ali has petitioned me for an opinion repeatedly at my user talk page. Three days ago I asked him for substantiating evidence, User_talk:Durova#user_blocked_on_political_grounds. Instead of responding to that he opens a new thread here to renew basically the same claims. As I stated before, two of the grounds Jayjg expressed in the block warning were WP:POINT and WP:AGF. This ANI thread could be reasonably interpreted as violating both policies. While I remain ready to perform an impartial review on any specific evidence that might be forthcoming, I'll also note my empiricial observation that editors who forum shop instead of providing evidence very seldom have a legitimate case to present. I will not issue a block for this incident, but I would have no objection if someone else did. Durova^Charge! 15:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali has responded at my user page and allayed some of my concerns. I'm still willing to perform an investigation and waiting for evidence. Durova^Charge! 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If Abu Ali doesn't want to be blocked for personal attacks and inappropriate accusations of COI, he could stop making them. It's a novel solution, granted, but it's worth a try! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly fair, I advised him to ask you (Slim) which particular posts you considered to be personal attacks and he tells me you haven't replied. I agree that COI allegations need to be substantiated with compelling evidence. Let's clear the air so everyone can get back to editing. Durova^Charge! 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Headphonos

Resolved

This user appears to be ignoring by multiple conduct warnings (e.g. 1, 2, 3). I would issue a block myself, but he had a lready personally attacked me ( diff). I think the warning stage has been exhausted. Thanks. El_C 11:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How about a short term ban, perhaps a week, with the explicit understanding that if these personal attacks don't stop, it'll be a month then an permanent ban for further incidents. I notice that such behaviour isn't exactly unusual for Headphonos. -- Nick ^t 11:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Shameful behavior, lots of warnings over an extended period of time. I've removed your 24-hour block and made it a week, Nick. I'd certainly support a month's ban if the user carries on in the same way when he returns. Bishonen | talk 12:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I'd support a month. He's been a thorny nuisance when I've had to deal with him. He gives Wiki a bad name. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've no problems at all with a longer block, the guys contribs are shocking, [29] this being one diff that shows what exactly Headphonos is doing and there's a whole load of general troublemaking going on. -- Nick ^t 12:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI -- the most recent ANI material I posted regarding this user. --Keesiewonder ^talk 13:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for 1 week by Bish. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:djf2014

Check the history. Metsbot replaces television on my user page with :Scepia/TV Djf2014 14:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a bug in MetsBot. You should notify Mets on his talk page. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Info999

I think this user needs a reminder from an uninvolved 3rd party about WP:CIVIL. The brief history is this. I made an objection known about an edit [30]. Info then ignored my points and responded with this. I sent an informal warning to Info on his talk page [31]. However, the user continues to assume bad faith and went on to make more attacks against Hybrid and me. [32]. I am placing this here because I don't think anyone should be blocked for this.. But a friendly reminder from an admin, may help to defuse the deteorating situation on this article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Party

There's a lot of POV pushing going on, and removing of cited material by anon-IP's. It would be advantageous for this page to be semi-protected. GreenJoe 17:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Watchlists

Just to keep this discussion centralized: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Watchlist_stuck--VectorPotential^Talk 17:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

J. Allen Hynek

• A non-registered IP keeps brining up an edit done by a specific user. I have tried looking at the August 22, 2006 edit history of the article to see what the non-registered IP user is trying to say, but I cant seem to find anything of the sort. Could somebody help clear this up? -Nima Baghaei (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• These are the only two edits I can find to that article on April 22nd, perhaps 84.133.54.222 (talk · contribs) is thinking of another article? They've also made mention to the german language wikipedia, is it possible that they're thinking of the same article, but on a different wiki?--VectorPotential^Talk 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, since it looks like you two are reverting over a source, I believe the source they're referring to is in the edit they describe, ie (Jacques Vallee, Revelations: Alien Contact and Human Deception, Ballantine Books, 1991; ISBN 0345371720)--VectorPotential^Talk 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• The user who removed this passage initially gave their reason in the article's Talk:J._Allen_Hynek talk page, please look here, they say Allen never said this -Nima Baghaei (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The partial quote "I have come to support less and less" does result in a handful of google hits, hard to say if they're primary sources or not, either way you're both well over the threshold of the 3 Revert Rule--VectorPotential^Talk 18:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• woops sorry bout the reverts ... hmm well the user who removed it initially was User:CharlesFort -Nima Baghaei (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Who has all of 2 mainspace edits, so perhaps you should take his statement with a grain of salt--VectorPotential^Talk 18:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Im confused (:O( -Nima Baghaei (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• CharlesFort (talk · contribs) seems to be a single purpose account, which means you shouldn't necessarily discount the anon, I have no opinion either way--VectorPotential^Talk 18:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• ohh gotcha, does anyone think they could get a copy of the book from the library and check if this is true? I am gonna see if my library here at school has it (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• A little research shows that Google Books in fact supports the quote--VectorPotential^Talk 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• of course that is a proven quote, and thanks to Vector for yet another source. You should also know that the users "CharlesFort" and "Bwilcke" represent the same person. For these kind of changes "Bwilcke" (and most of her double-accounts) were already banned from the German Wiki indefinitely. 84.133.40.99 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tracked down what appears to be German Wikipedia's Block Log, although I'm not quite sure since I don't speak a word of German, here's the google translation, yep, defiantly their block log--VectorPotential^Talk 19:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• woho yah your right, ok I have cited the google book as a reference to (:O) ... I guess this issue is settled then? (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Zurbagan (talk · contribs) sock and personal attack

This is a new user, who immediately jumped to edit the page created by one of the socks of Robert599 (talk · contribs). And he further attacked two users, calling them as "Vandals" here [33] Thanks. Atabek 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio at Image:MNLicensePlate2.jpg

How long is the duration of the block for the copyright violation at Image:MNLicensePlate2.jpg? --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks tend to be given to copyright violators if they persist despite warnings. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request by User:Rex Germanus

I ask fellow administrators for feedback over an unblock request which was posted by this user and was apparently willfully ignored for 24 hours. Please see this section and this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel your anger, but disagree. There are reasons for us to require unblock requests to use the form {{unblock|reason here}} and no other form. That reasons are, one, so that admins don't have to hunt through kilobytes of talk just to find the request; two, it facilitates the administration of unblock reviews because it provides boilerplate closure text; three, it makes several rejected requests (i.e., {{unblock-abuse}}) easy to spot; four, we can expect people who have been blocked for disobeying our rules to at least conform to this rule if they want to be unblocked; five, it compels the blocked user to actually write an unblock rationale.

In addition, I think your shortening of the block was out of line and discourteous to the blocking admin, whom I had already contacted for comment, proposing essentially the same result that you unilaterally imposed. Our blocking procedures require unblocks to occur by admin consensus, except in obvious cases. I'd expect more respect for procedure from an administrator. Sandstein 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I don't buy this. I am a frequent enough requests-for-unblock patroller to know what use that template is for. So: one you obviously had found the request already, or else you couldn't have answered it in the place you did. And, if you respond to a standard unblock, are you not going to read its context? Are you not going to try to make yourself a picture of what happened before and after the block? If there's a posting by a third party commenting on the block, are you not going to read it? (there were three or four, in this case). And when a fellow admin politely asks you explicitly to consider the request despite the lack of the standard template, are you going to ignore that admin's work? I even pointed you to the place where the request was; heck, I even gave you a link to a version of the page where the request did have the standard box. twoTo have provided your own copy of the standard boilerplate closure text would have been less work than writing out the response you did write (let alone having this discussion now). three You spot unblock abuse by reading the page history. four He did attempt to follow the rules; he was having a technical problem with formatting. five He did write out a rationale, and I told you where it was.

As for deciding this unilaterally, well, I did feel it had become a special case requiring special action. Besides, people had actually tried to contact the blocking admin; he had failed to notify the blockee in the first place and then failed again to rectify that when notified by a third party; then this morning I must have missed him by three minutes (he was active editing until three minutes before I wrote to him asking about that block). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Melt down on WP:AN/3RR - Am I really a bad guy??

Can someone please help me out? Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Smeelgova reported by User:Justanother (Result: no block). I thought this was straight-forward. User:Smeelgova violated 3RR. I reported 4RR (just the facts, no drama); and an admin, User:Jossi, did not find 4RR; I queried nicely on his talk page (since removed by Jossi) and Jossi himself reopened the incident; I then asked for an editor to help me out with an anon post in the same article as I was already at 3RR; Smee, at 4RR, made it 5RR and I objected politely; Smee melts down and starts throwing muck at me on the 3RR noticeboard. And I am "harassing" him, proclaims loudly. I really do not know what to do anymore. Every time Smee violates 3RR in his edit-warring he acts all repentant and makes a big show of taking the specific article off his watchlist. But his behaviour doesn't change. Do you guys just want me to quit bothering you when I am the victim of 3RR? Then just tell me so as it is a big waste of time for everyone when I report a clear case of 3RR vio and have to jump through a hoop to get anything done about and sometimes that doesn't work either. I am at your command. Thanks. --Justanother 20:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Justanother (talk • contribs • logs) has been warned for disrupting the WP:ANI page before, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block. As to this particular incident, User:Jossi decided "no block". User:Justanother continues to push the issue. I have removed the page in question from my watchlist, even though no guilt was found. I have even removed the WP:AN/3RR page from my watchlist, for I no longer wished to respond to baiting/harassment. The use of this page for this issue is redundant and a disruption waste of time for admins, for as far as I know it is still pending at WP:AN/3RR, and/or has already been decided as a done-issue. We seem to be encountering a pattern of disruption, and personal attacks/harassment with this user, as opposed to contributing any useful constructive material to the project... Smee 20:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
  • NOTE: - Please also note that User:Anynobody has started an RFC with regards to this user's actions, at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anynobody and Justanother. Smee 20:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, it shouldn't have descended into an edit war to begin with, and discussion should have been had on the article's talk page. But your understanding of 3RR is slightly flawed: it only applies when the same reversions are made. If edits are different (such as the 4th edit you cited), then it is technically not a violation of 3RR. Note that that doesn't mean that a block for edit warring cannot be made — 3RR is not a guarantee that you are entitled to 3 reverts. But you were edit warring just as much as Smee. Also, you complained that an anon had readded a link that Smee had been warring to keep in the article, then when Smee REMOVED the link that he had warred to keep in, you accused him of making a 5th reversion, which is simply untrue. If, for example, Smee had made that edit rather than an anon, our policy instructs him to self-revert. Under your characterization of his edits, that would have been the equivalent of a fifth reversion, which is simply not true. Conclusion: stop edit warring, and let's discuss. Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I appreciate the input. I must disagree, though, about your understanding of WP:3RR. Different material reverted is most definitely counted. Here is the applicable line, the second line and set in (for emphasis, I assume):

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

So clearly Smee was 4RR edit-warring when it I reported it and the only reason I bring up the 5th was to underscore that Smee still thought he could carry on reverting. --Justanother 21:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. For the record, that was added 2 days ago. I don't think I agree with the change, and it contravenes what in my opinion has always been the basis of 3RR. Was the 4th edit that you cited actually a revert of another editor's changes, or was it simply an edit? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes, it was his 4th revert of one of my edits. --Justanother 22:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in here quickly with some advice for the original poster. I noted with concern your following choice of language:

as I was already at 3RR

Please keep in mind that reverts aren't "credits" that can be spent. If I've misinterpreted your text above, I apologize, but if not, please keep in mind that, as mentioned above, discussion is the key to successfully resolving disputes and co-editing on the project. If you find yourself counting reversions, then you're missing an opportunity to repair the root cause of the issue. Lobbying cannonballs back and forth, looking for people to gang up, that's just a road to stress and grief, and in a world where Steve Gutenberg is a movie star, don't we have enough already? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, you make a good point. To be honest, I just want to edit and if someone has a dispute with my edit then we can discuss. Smee has asked for 3rd opinions before after reverting my edits, and has been proven wrong before but that has not seemed to dissuade him from continuing to go after my edits. I just want 3RR to act as the buffer between an editor and a reverter that it seems to me to be intended to be and it will not be that buffer so long as it is selectively applied with Smee somehow exempted. --Justanother 22:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Karolina Kurkova article

Can an admin fully protect this article, there's been relentless edit-warring for months now, with no discussion on the talk page whatsoever, and it's persistent edit-warring. Semiprotecting it won't help, as it's just a battleground now, like The Game (game) was. --Jelstroppykazlinn 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)— Jelstroppykazlinn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I don't see any signs of an edit war, however for some reason there do seem to be a string of single purpose sockpuppets trying to {{protect}} the article, yourself included, care to explain your position?--VectorPotential^Talk 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, there are only a dozen or so edits to that page over the last 3 months, if there's an edit war, it's invisible --VectorPotential^Talk 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Willy On Wheels

Resolved

I was just leaving a comment on the Daniel Brandt AfD and why a non-notable person shouldn't have an entry in Wikipedia. I thought to myself "Willy on Wheels" doesn't even have his own page, so why should someone like Brandt have one. That's when I looked it up and it seems that something fishy is going on there. It looks like some kind of vandalism. Just FYI --ProtectWomen 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Merope 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks by User:Tajik

I am writing to report persistent personal attacks by User:Tajik at Talk:Safavid Dynasty. Here are the instances with diff links:

• "What the hell are you talking about?!", "What's wrong with you?!", "Your stubborn attitude is the main reason...", etc. at [34]. I warned the user and said that I will ignore his attack for now [35].
• After the first warning, User:Tajik again: "this is the information that Wikipedia needs, not your POV and stubborn tries to defend POV" [36] and for the second time, I warned the user kindly [37]
• Another attack: "do not think that YOU are in ANY respectable position to judge that a world-class scholar like Minorsky was "wrong"" [38]
• In my response to my reference to precise quote from Friedrich Nietzshe unrelated to the user [39], the response and blackmail warnings from User:Tajik were at [40]:

• "I ask you for the last time to stop lying",
• "You also continue your lie",
• "So please stop to continue your lies and I once again remind you to watch WP:CIVIL",
• "So please stop your agenda, and please stop lying",
• "The problem with you is that you are not ballanced at all"
• "you - based on your own anti-Persian ethnocentrism - purposely cut the text"

Please, help to address the issue. I have exhausted all available means to convince him to stop attacking me. Atabek 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Those look a lot like people in serious disagreement, not personal attacks. I'm sure things are hot, but the best solution is probably the mediation cabal. You need referees and umpires, and not really anything administrative, from what you've posted. Geogre 21:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• But lack of administrative action would essentially encourage such attacks. It becomes hard to discuss anything in civil manner on talk pages, when one of the parties is constantly trying to attack you like above. Atabek 21:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

These were not personal attacks, but facts. I had warned Atabek before not to repeat his false claims about me. Yet, he ignored my advice and continued to repead those false claims. And this is exactly the definition of "lying". Reporting these minor comments and purposely interpreting them as "personal attacks" is just another attempt by User:Atabek to provocate me and to give me a bad name. keeping in mind that he himself is under constant watch by admins, and that he is known for POV pushes, in part Turkish-nationalist ideology, and especially some kind of anti-Armenian sentiments, I do not think that he is in any position to critisize others. Just take a look at this comment: [41] Also take a look at this: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision. User:Atabek is also known for using sock-puppets in Wikipedia in order to falsify information and to push for POV: [42].

Tājik 22:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope the administrators can see now that the negligence and leniency only encourages the attacker. Tajik, you should not talk much accusing me of allegedly "anti-Armenian sentiments", unless you want to be dragged into the relevant ArbCom case and present your "evidence" there. Meanwhile, I will pursue the case with your personal attacks until the justice is served, just like it is and should be served with any of us. Atabek 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

I am inclined to interpret this [43] as a legal threat, a rather debased currency I know but the user, Nocternal (talk · contribs) is very clearly a sockpuppet anyway (check the contribs) and this followup [44] reinforces it. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any understanding of what this person is referring to? Newyorkbrad 21:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Guy warned him on his talk page with regard to this incident report. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to the reply. Yup. He seems to think that redacting the text is impeding a law officer or some such bollocks. Hard to see how he'd enforce it across the Atlantic anyway :-) Guy (Help!) 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No offense to the project, but I really do hope and prey that our law enforcement officials are not relying upon Wikipedia in order to solve active homicide investigations.  ;) Bitnine 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an obvious legal threat, and it's a good block, and I think indefinite is the right time period unless Nocternal can indicate some willingness to shape up, particulary given the sock suspicion. The more sophisticated trolling would be "I am a law enforcement officer engaged in an investigation, and am using the Wikipedia reference desk for my investigation", but unless Nocternal is really Clancy Wiggum, I don't buy it.  ;) (Also, technically he said that Guy was threating a law enforcement office, not an officer,[45] so I guess he's claiming to be the Barbados police station or something). TheronJ 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As the originator of the original complaint, I thought at first that it was a legal threat, but it occurred to me that he might be claiming that the actions of the person he has been making his comments about in the RD question is guilty of what he is charging on the User's talk page, and is not claiming that the User himself is guilty of those items. But I may just be taking AGF to the extreme. Corvus cornix 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Silly me. And here I was giving him the benefit of the doubt: [46]. Corvus cornix 02:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I will need a reliable source on that claim hehe. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

CAT:CSD

What's happened to it?? It appears as though it's just a list, and the images do not display, what's gone wrong?? --sunstar net^talk 23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, it's the __NOGALLERY__ feature, it turns the gallery into a list. Saves a lot of download time. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, Aecis. Didn't understand what had happened there, thanks for clarifying. --sunstar net^talk 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, there's quite a backlog there, anyone feel like helping out?--VectorPotential^Talk 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This still needs dealing with. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

questionable account creation

Resolved

Beast88 (talk · contribs) has created five other accounts so far, including problematic usernames Aintnostoppingme (talk · contribs), Aintnostoppingme never (talk · contribs), and Ha unstoppable (talk · contribs). Some admin may want to keep an eye on this. Natalie 23:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue was also raised on WP:AN (by me), all accounts created by Beast88 have been indefblocked. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Natalie 00:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Essay controversy story is getting a rather large amount of notoriety with ABC News having just reported on it with a planned video report to be aired later on today. In light of that a good number of eyes are likely to be needed on this article. (→Netscott) 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also judging by the number of editors who've changed from delete to keep / abstain I think it'd be safe at this point to snowball this article's AfD and subsequently remove its accompanying AfD tag from the article. (→Netscott) 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not snowballed it, but closed it as no consensus (which is obvious). We can always revisit it later if necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 00:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that many editors have been working on this today to achive NPOV. The article was edited to follow chronilogical order and to refer to Ryan by name as little as required (and not at all in the intro). Concensus was reached that this would prevent the article becoming a bio and we felt that this is preferable as the news is more about Essjay the editor than about Ryan the individual. Please bear this in mind as many of these edits have been removed in the last couple of hours. - Regards - Munta 01:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks?

Resolved

Can someone have a look at [47]? I was just doing a quick flyby (on the road right now) and was asked by the target of that attack if I could have a look at that edit. I think it's out of line, but would appreciate if someone here could look a little deeper. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I would say it is technically a personal attack, but it is most definitely not civil discourse. IrishGuy ^talk 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A bit of a rant, but not even I can see a clear personal attack. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Irishguy and HighInBC. A very long banter with very small eeps of snideness but not really any direct personal attacks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, as always! I'll take care of it from here... | Mr. Darcy talk 02:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Xsp85 (talk · contribs)

Would someone neutral mind looking at the recent edits of the above user on Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and, if warranted, leave them a message regarding the NPOV policy? I don't feel that I should do it myself because I've been involved with editing of the article. So far I think we've done a good job of maintaining a neutral article on a controversial person. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unicorn144 (talk · contribs)

I also would welcome some help with the above user - I left this report earlier, but it was moved to the archives without action. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

A vandal has been attacking pages I created. Apparently, I deleted his article at some point and he is quite mad. Thus far he has been Stopthepowermad34, Stopthepowermad35, Stopthepowermad36, Stopthepowermad37, Stopthepowermad39, and Oppsagain2499. Can someone keep an eye out? At some point I will have to log off. IrishGuy ^talk 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And he just made Stopthe powermad1. IrishGuy ^talk 01:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, he has admitted to targeting me here. Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Some new ones: St op the power mad45, User:Iore iff stop 'n you, and the lovely I am here to stop irishgy. Nice. IrishGuy ^talk 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit removal

Resolved

I was looking at users requesting unblocking and I found this edit by a vandal from last year. It has a name and a phone number so can someone removed that edit? I don't want some kid getting harassed if someone looks through the edit history. Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 02:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Death Star III

I came across User:Death Star III at GAC, Check contribs. Basically this user has set up a fake user page and has been going around the wiki for some time creating bogus article (which should all be deleted) and making bogus GA nominations. Far as I can tell he has only been warned once. Something needs to be done about this user immediately, it is clear they are here to disrupt. They should be blocked indefinitely.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I could be wrong but that is my impression with recent edit summaries like "haha vandalized!" And nominations to GAC that are blatantly copyvios or one paragraph long. Perhaps I am wrong.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you expressed your concerns to the editor? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I placed a notice on the users talk page about an AfD discussion, perhaps I acted prematurely. Just had some bad Wiki times lately I guess. Perhaps you could leave this thread open in case, there are some pretty blatant vandal edits in the history, could just be a kid based on an article created about a fifth grade teacher (deleted this morning) but the edits to the Enron stuff speak otherwise.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually deleted the article about the 5th grade teacher. It appeared as it was good faith (but nonetheless obvious speedy material). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing, the contrib history looks really weird, almost torn between being a vandal and being a serious contributor. It's odd. I am going to post a message on the user's talk page. Perhaps they will respond.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I placed a message on the user's talk page. Can their talk page be deleted if it isn't corrected? I am not really sure how that works, the guidelines and such seem a bit ambiguous (on purpose I assume to leave plenty of leeway for discretion) The user, however is obviously not a brigadier general nor have they been a member since 2006 far as I can tell by their contrib history. Is there a way to verify that?

In the meantime I nominated one article Hiatus Road for deletion and tagged a copyvio Timeline of Plantation, Florida for speedy.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re "The user, however is obviously not a brigadier general" - He's clearly not a dark lord of the sith, or an ageless immortal, either. --Random832 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Faking credentials isn't a violation of any wikipeda rule I can find. It's a violation of the communities trust... and thats different. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to publicly apoligize for the false information on my userpage i would also like to apoligize for vandalizing pages. i hope you can forgive me and welcome me back to wikipedia. I can understand you deleting Ilene Miller though please don't delete Hiatus Road and Timeline of Plantation, Florida --Death Star III 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this user is adequately trying to reform. Death Star: The Hiatus Road article is up for community discussion, which you can join in, follow the link on the article's page. I think this thread can probably be closed. Thanks for your help folks, sorry if I jumped the gun, better safe than sorry I guess. As for the credential thing, yeah I kinda thought so. Hahaha, yeah he is obviously not a Sith Lord, but those can't be claimed as actual credentials.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Parker007 (talk · contribs) trolling? WP:POINT?

Parker007 (talk · contribs) has made several odd, somewhat disruptive edits: S/He has nominated the Misc ref desk for deletion Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Proposal_to_remove_Misc_desk_.40_Village_Pump and s/he's inviting editors to oppose her/his RfA. [48] [49] Looks like WP:POINT to me (making an unpopular move in order to garner oppose votes). I don't know if any action should be taken. Anchoress 23:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I recall Parker going on a WP:POINT spree a month ago when I deleted something of his as redundant, so this isn't a new thing for him. – Steel 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the current consensus on snowballing failing RfA's? His is at 1/11/0 at the moment. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind SNOW; if the applicant is actively campaigning against promotion, it's a bad-faith (self)-nom. Anchoress 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I delisted and closed it. Trebor 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• There was (is? my killfile does not tell me) a troll called "Parker Peters" on WikiEN-l for some time who claimed, without much credibility, to be an admin. I wonder if this is related? Guy (Help!) 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Had this hunch after my last contact with him, but he wasn't doing anything disruptive at the time; maybe time to see if that blip on the troll radar is the real thing. Opabinia regalis 02:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Endgame1 says this is likely; combined with his behavior, I'd say that's a yes. His past activities have been quite disruptive, but to be fair, he did apologize for some of his recent trolling; I'm somewhat hesitant to just block him, because his contributions under this account aren't noticeably worse than any other kid with more time and enthusiasm than anything else, and the sock you know is better than the sock you don't. Thoughts? Opabinia regalis 04:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

207.6.210.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Resolved

This user keeps vandalising the IPodLinux page as well as putting personal attacks on my user page. His contributions are vandalism. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him. Next time, use WP:AIV for this sort of thing. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 05:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I was going to put the entry there, but he technically isn't active now, unless I misunderstood and that active means recently and not that he's currently on a vandalism rampage. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user still editing

Resolved

User:Alaric the Goth was confirmed as a sockpuppet of banned user Arthur Ellis about two days ago [50] but is still editing. Could someone please deal with him? Kla'quot 06:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --Coredesat 06:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Women's rights

Resolved

Can someone semi protect this asap? Apparently 4chan has it in their sights tonight. I posted to page protection requests at WP:RFP but it looks backed up. thanks, sorry if this is out of procedure. - Denny 06:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected by User:No Guru. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:08Z

Indef blocked User:Pogsurf sockpuppetry

Hi, the indef blocked User:Pogsurf (vandalism only account) is evading their block with a sockpuppet, User:Lobster blogster. Both users demonstrated a high level of Wikipedia skill immediately after registration, and have demonstrated the same MO by editing a very narrow range of articles (especially Paul Staines and Claire Ward, who is the current MP for Watford, a page Lobster blogster has also edited) and repeatedly linking to the same Guardian article. Also, a quick google confirms the link between "Pogsurf", "Lobster blogster", and Watford, however I won't post the links as it's poor wikiquette to reveal peoples' real names online unless they volunteer them. I raised this first on User:Majorly's talk page, but moving it here to go through the official channels. Could an admin deal please? Cheers, DWaterson 16:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add more proof, see [51], User:62.136.198.105 appears to be the same as User:Lobster blogster. User:Pogsurf had an anonymous alter ego, which was User:62.136.238.65. A quick comparison of their edit histories shows this, and [52] shows Pogsurf thanking another user for a comment left on 62.136.238.65's talk page - something he'd only do if they are the same. Note that 62.136.198.105 and 62.136.238.65 are the same ISP, and both perform the same kind of edits. This shows that 62.136.238.65, 62.136.238.65, Pogsurf and Lobster Blogster are one and the same. Note as well that Lobster Blogster has also edited the Watford talk page, with a very similar comment to one Pogsurf left on articles before he was banned. And Pogsurf was often editing Claire Ward - who is the MP for Watford. Nssdfdsfds 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

--

I have just added this back from the archives, as the user is still here, should still be blocked, and is still inserting libellous material into Talk:Paul Staines. Could *someone* please block him - this process doesn't seem to be working.

Thanks Nssdfdsfds 09:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

protracted Edit war at Europe with one party refusing to discuss at all

There is borderline vandalism going on at Europe for several days now, with a problem editor who repeatedly blanks out the Norwegian flag with the listings of Svalbard and Jan Mayen from the list of regions within Europe, but refuses to account for this action on the discussion. In his latest edit summary, he said there is no need for him to discuss or explain his views because he is simply right and all the editors who revert him are wrong, so with one party refusing to come to the table for discussion, the edit war just drags on and on. What else can be done? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I am restoring this section from archive, because it was swept under the rug on the same day without an adequate resolution. The contant blanking of Svalbard continues at Europe with sockpuppet accounts refusing to discuss one word, even though the page had to be protected to stop all the IP blanking. Please some admin look into this

and don't just try to pass the buck to a different burocratic office. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it borderline? There's no justification for that, it seems to me. Xiner (talk, email) 00:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I say borderline because he may have some content dispute, but he isn't making it on the discussion page. I had to do my own investigation, and found the same editor has proposed the article Svalbard and Jan Mayen for a deletion, so that sems to afford some clues, but when I asked him (via edit summary) to wait for the outcome of that afd, he replied (via edit summary) that it was "irrelevant"... As best as I can piece together from his summaries, his beef seems to be that because Norway considers them sovereign and fully integrated parts of Norway, there is no need to mention them at all in a list of geographic areas found within Europe. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it seems to be a WP:3RR violation. Xiner (talk, email) 00:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have probably also been guilty of breaking 3RR myself in reverting him, because it seems vandalism and not the proper way to make his point by avoiding discussion or explanation. What I really want is to somehow get him to discuss the matter. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Post a 3RR warning and if he continues, go to WP:AN3. Or maybe an admin will come around soon and help you. Maybe a warning will encourage him to start talking. Xiner (talk, email) 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And if he's deleting the Norway flag, it may be considered vandalism as well as a content dispute. Xiner (talk, email) 01:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A less attractive but possibly necessary alternative is to seek full protection at WP:RFPP, since it's an edit war involving registered users. Xiner (talk, email) 01:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the only Norway flag he is really deleting is the little one identifying who own the territory, along with the listing of the territory... It's not like he is deleting all of the Norway flags on the page...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, this may be a candidate for WP:LEW. --Random832 20:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I became involved in this fairly recently, but here is what I have seen. The problem is with User:Dagnabit, who has removed or altered a number of references to the Svalbard and Jan Mayen article, including this and this. While some changes (such as [53] this) may have been justified, the bulk of them are not, as they specifically refer to the ISO designation (and UN identifier) Svalbard and Jan Mayen, and linking to the two separate articles is incorrect. In the case of the Europe article, it is a content question whether there should be a separate entry for "Svalbard and Jan Mayen" on the table, but Dagnabit appears to have refused to engage in any constructive conversation, merely claiming everything to be "nonsense", "vandalism", etc. Recently identical reversions (with incorrect "minor" designations and "vandalism" summaries) have been taken up by anonymous IP addresses, with the obvious implications. The article appears to have been recently sprotected by User:Gnangarra, but the last reversion was by new user User:Notable sam, a single-edit account created 4 days ago, and thus just able to bypass the s-protection. I don't think full protection is needed right now, although it will be interesting to see if any other "sleeper" accounts show up.

If you look at the Svalbard history, this appears to be an ongoing editorial battle by the same individual, previous using accounts named User:Tapir2001 (the signature phrase "stop making up facts"). Any admins considering this may also want to view the editing interests and user page style of User:TexasWalkerRanger - David Oberst 17:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, he also failed to delete the article where all this is explained, Svalbard and Jan Mayen, but does not seem inclined to give up the struggle... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just reported User:Notable sam at 3RR - presumably a sock of User:Dagnabit. - David Oberst 14:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Scumbag (talk · contribs)

Continued from above, there is a second issue here, unrelated to the MTG sets. Scumbag (talk · contribs) has declared that he has no intention of following WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:WAF, or WP:FICT. When I noted this, I went through his contribs for articles that failed these policies and guidelines, to fix them. Examples include Ravnica, Cybran Nation, Tiberium, Aeon Illuminate, and Forced Evolutionary Virus, all articles written as though they were real things, with little reference to the real world and the only "references" being vague comments to the effect of "I took this from the game". Scumbag has taken this as some sort of vendetta on my part. I invite review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh Christ. I've blocked him. This is, of course, open to review, but I think it's important to take a firm stance here and tell him that, actually, we are going to follow WP:ATT and WP:WAF. Edit warring is one thing, but edit warring when you've admitted that you don't give a monkey's toss about policy is another. – Steel 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading that, I support the block. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as an addendum, you might want to add WP:OR to the list of things he doesn't feel are valid. - J Greb 21:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with 24h block, would support longer block in case of any further edits made pursuant to his own "policies". Sandstein 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:OR, and something else were merged into WP:ATT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Sometimes I disagree with policy, but that's because (1) keeping up with policy can be a full-time job in itself, so I just use common sense, & (2) if I've made a serious mistake, I assume someone will follow behind me & fix things -- just like people correct my typos & misspellings. Saying that I'm going to take on the Wikipedia community over disagreement about various policy (rather than explain why I think they are wrong), is not helping the project; it's just being a troublemaker for its own sake. -- llywrch 23:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, am I the only one who questions the appropriateness of Scumbag's username? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's blockable as a sexual reference. The term has been watered-down somewhat in contemporary usage, but back in the '60s and '70s it was most commonly used as a proxy for the term condom.[54] -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The name is fine - what's with the user name witchhunts recently? I object to Hit bull, win steak, as it incites animal violence. I also object to 'Newyorkbrad' as New York is where the September 11th attacks took place, and "brad" could stand for "Bombed, Razed And Destroyed", so it's clearly laughing about 9/11. Evil. Lunacy aside, Scumbag's cruftacular OR contributions are not a good thing. Neil (not Proto ►) 10:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you bother to look at the dictionary definition in my link? It's not like this is a dead issue; the NY Times just got a big flood of complaints last year after they used it as an answer in their crossword puzzle.[55] -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The bull is right. In Bull Durham, if you hit the bull beyond the wall at the DAP (Durham Athletic Park), you get a free steak. "Scumbag" is a pejorative at best and a profanity most commonly. Even though it no longer has condom as its primary meaning, it is still, even in popular imagination, sexual profanation. Imagine "douchebag" as a user name. Geogre 13:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess maybe it's more offensive in the US than in the UK, where it's a mild insult (like calling someone a jerk). Neil (not Proto ►) 13:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Kinda like the "cunt" disparity across the pond? Could be. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, he's an established contributor with no apparent ill will behind the choice (see his userpage), so if someone wants to object, then please do it gently. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Violation of Probation

User:Karl Meier who was put on probation after edit waring on Muhammad cartoon incident now is involved in edit war on images in Muhammad/images article. Here are his todays reverts [56],[57]. Not only in Muhammad article but on my talk page (four reverts in one day [58],[59],[60],[61] which I consider it harrasment, if not violation of WP:3RR) and on doing disruptive editing on Islamophobia. Here are his three revert of 5th (one day) [62],[63],[64]. I think there will be other such edits if you would look into his contribution. Is there anyone who can enforce his probation?--- ALM 21:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As an aside to this posting please note that User:Karl Meier has been previously plauged by anon-IP wikistalkers who've systematically reverted his edits. In following some of the histories of the articles that Karl Meier has been editing on of late it appears as though he is currently undergoing another round of Wikistalking by anon-IP editors. (→Netscott) 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspected that I had been very briefly wikistalked by ALMScientist here[65] and here[66] but apparently ceased as soon as I called him on it[67] --ProtectWomen 21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Those article are in my watch list and I have past edits in them. I even do not know you except those three edits then how can I stalk you (just based on three edits)? Who are you? -- ALM 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

At least one these IP wikistalkers is a banned user.[68], [69], see [70], [71]. I have no trouble with the user (who has anyhow proved impossible to block) contributing per se, but it would be perverse to punish Karl for reverting his reverts. It's unfortunate that ALM scientist is willing to use this occasion to prevent Karl from participating in the Muhammad images discussion.Proabivouac 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridicules. How many times will you, ALM Scientist and your friend Itaqallah try to get me somehow punished for opposing the anon stalker that is following me around the Wiki? I am sure that you are angry that you attempts to censor the images from the Muhammad article isn't very successful, but fact is that WP is written according to its policies and not according to certain conservative Islamic ideas about what is and what isn't allowed. -- Karl Meier 22:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And regarding what happened on your discussion page. 1. One of the reverts was a self revert. 2. You made atleast 5 reverts and none of them was a self revert 3. Removing warnings regarding issues such as your very rude "no personal attack" violations against another editor is considered vandalism, and 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism. I didn't cared to report your behavior then, but if you do it again I can assure that I will report your unacceptable behavior. Personal attacks and vandalism against warnings against such behavior is not allowed. -- Karl Meier 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if not, the only result would be that you'd be banned from editing ALM's user talk.Proabivouac 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott is quite right when he said that a lot of your warring was against someone you had probably "dueled" against previously, this i wasn't entirely aware of when notifying Tony Sideaway. regardless, you are reverting, extensively, over a series of articles, purging a cat you believe is unacceptable (which the community has not decided upon yet, the CfD is ongoing). that's known as a content dispute. furthermore, i don't see you reverting any IP's in these particular edits[72][73][74][75][76][77], among others. ITAQALLAH 22:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Personal attacks... ...is not allowed" .. do note that you just said: "I am sure that you are angry that you attempts to censor the images from the Muhammad article isn't very successful". ITAQALLAH 22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your anon friend that is reverting me is editing from several IP addresses, and changed to a new one instantly, when one of them was banned for a week. So, no, I am not dealing with one particular IP address, but I am obviously dealing with one person. It is true that I have also confronted some biased editing from editors sharing your and ALM's opinions, and I can't help thinking that this might have been one of the motivating factors behind these attempts to get me blocked. -- Karl Meier 09:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the fact that ALM isnt very succesful in his attempts to get the images of Muhammad deleted, I believe that there should be noting wrong with pointing that out that he is obviously angry about it, considering the fact that he himself has mentioned that he is willing to get "permanently banned" over that issue. He seems to be very emotional about the whole issue, but fact is that he should realize that we should include images according to policy, and not according to what conservative Islam believe is acceptable and not acceptable to include in our encyclopedia. -- Karl Meier 09:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as ALM writes: "I am ready to be blocked FOREVER for this. FOREVER."[78]

ALM continues to remove valid attempts to address disputed behavior from his talk page[79],[80] regarding his blankings of images on Muhammad as follows:[81],[82],[83],[84],[85],[86],[87],[88],[89],[90],[91],[92],[93],[94],[95],[96],[97],[98],[99],[100],[101],[102],[103],[104],[105],

[106],[107],[108],[109],[110],[111],[112],[113],[114],[115],[116],[117],[118],[119],[120],[121],[122],[123],[124],[125],[126],[127],[128],

[129],[130],[131],[132],[133],[134],[135],[136],[137],[138],[139],[140],[141],[142],[143],[144],[145],[146],[147],[148],[149],[150],[151]

These are probably what Karl had in mind when he spoke of ALM's "attempts to censor the images from the Muhammad article."

ALM has taken to removing increasingly frequent warnings from a number of editors about 3RR[152], [153],[154],[155],[156] and personal attacks:[157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168] from his user talk; Karl's experience is hardly unique.Proabivouac 10:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be pointed out that ALM was right in that last incident. There had been no personal attack, the warning was bogus, and repeated reinstatements of the warning together with vandalism warnings over its removal were even more bogus. ALM had used the "kettle-pot" saying and accidentally misspelled "kettle" as "cattle". Everybody could easily have seen that was an innocent linguistic mistake. Besides, everybody is free to remove warnings from their talkpage any time, and edit-warring over their restoration easily amounts to harassment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you guys, ItaqAllah (who has been described before by another Muslim as a "wahabi editor") and ALM teaming up on Karl for edits by anonymous vandals that he reverted? It seems as if you are the anonymous IP's yourself. Why dont you guys let the anonymous IP's defend themselves? Other people are having problems with ALM due to his own edit waring - see here--Matt57 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, It was user:Arrow740 (a self-declared critic of Islam [169],[170]; not a Muslim) who said that Itaqllah is a Wahabi and it was a personal attack. And now this is your personal attack. --Aminz 10:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's still worth asking why we are allying with wikistalking/edit-warring banned users.Proabivouac 10:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, whom am I allying with? I was saying that Arrow740 made the personal attack of calling Itaqallah a Wahabi, who is not a Muslim as Matt57 wrote, but rather a self-declared critic of Islam [171], [172]. Also, what Matt57 wrote was a personal attack in itself and it had nothing to do with this discussion. --Aminz 10:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean you, Aminz; and as Itaqallah's comments above indicate that he recognizes this problem and doesn't mean to do so, I can't see that there is any more dispute in this regard. The question is instead why ALM scientist has seized upon this red herring to punish Karl Meier for his position against religiously-motivated censorship in mediation regarding depictions of Muhammad.Proabivouac 10:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for all Karl's reverts, but for the very first revert listed in this complaint, I'm the person he reverted, and I can say categorically he was 100% right to do it, and I'm glad he pointed that out. So, please don't take that edit into consideration. --Alecmconroy 01:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding permanent block, user Eoganan

User:69.156.88.156 appears to be a User:Eoganan, who has been permanently blocked by User:Gwernol. Their IP addresses start with the same mnumbers (69.156) and the pattern of editing is the same. This user is highly disruptive, has a history of editing using different IPs and leaving racist abuse and personal attacks.

edits today

block by Gwernol

vandalism of my talk page today

previous vandalism of my talk page

previous evidence from IPs

Thanks for any help. Alun 06:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 1 month since it is clearly being used to evade the block on Eoganan and to make persistent personal attacks. Gwernol 06:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Eoganan is still editing [173] and also User:Pan-ethnic [[174]]. Pan-ethnic is editing the Race article in the same way and his user page discusses "ethnic nihilism", one of User:Eoganan's favorite terms. This user is evading a permanent ban, and is repeatedly using different IPs and user accounts to replace their edits. Alun 12:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for review

I recently blocked Master Cheif 001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for repeatedly violating copyright policies despite many warnings and a previous block. I have informed him here that if he can indicate that he understands the policies and will follow them in future I'll unblock him. I'm now going to bed and will be offline all day tomorrow, but if he responds favorably and someone wants to unblock him, please be my guest. Chick Bowen 07:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a common behavior to just keep uploading images and ignoring all warnings, perhaps because image policies are legalistic and hard? I blocked one recently (User:Blobba) and there's another one currently on AN/I (User:Shomari15). I don't see any easy solutions though. You did the right thing here. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:27Z

• Yeah copyright could be easier, but the upload page clearly says what you can and can't upload and if people choose to violate those rules instead of asking if something can be uploaded that is a problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Offensive userboxes being created

User:Mike Rosoft just blocked User:Glororumn30 for creating offensive userboxes, see the deletion log for evidence. I believe the user may be a sockpuppet of someone who has been blocked before for creating inflammatory userboxes.

With regard to the topic of userboxes, I'm not too much of a fan of them myself (apart from WikiProject ones) --sunstar net^talk 10:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards

Reposted because southphilly moved it up. I assume to escape administrator attention.

Thread retitled from "WP:OWN and a wikiproject about to get nasty".

I've been watching the debate here to see if it is suitable for the project to have a co-ordinator (who if you look at the history seems to be have just appointed himself after minimum consultancy and many people saying the post was unrequired). As a wikipedian of good standing, I wished to comment about the matter. However it seems that I don't have the right to do so according to a sole editor (not the same person as the co-ordinator). My position on this is very clear, all wikiprojects by their very nature should be inclusive - any attempt to say that wikipedians of good standing cannot imput into their development of a project that affects the community should be stamped on and stamped on hard. Projects do not exist outside of the regular norms of the community and should not be allowed to try and enforce guidelines that are not in line with the rest of the community.

I can see that this is about to get nasty and see the good ship HMS revertwar appearing on the horizon, can an admin pop across and have a look. --Fredrick day 20:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen more and more cases of Wikprojects trying to OWN articles. This needs to be addressed and stopped. Corvus cornix 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this isn't about a WP trying to own an article, it's about a user (allegedly) trying to own a WP. I do agree with your point, but it's not entirely relevant here :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This has moved on - the WP:OWN issues are still there and the same editor has now decided that only certain wikipedians areenfranchised. This is complete bollocks, wikiprojects do not get to opt out of community input. --Fredrick day 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation is getting ridiculous. Southphilly, realising that everyone else is in favour of scrapping a coordinator and my cleanup edits to the page, has taken to simply reverting the page without edit summaries (previously he kept insisting I needed to hold a vote on every change I wanted to make). I encourage anyone reading this to read the talkpage and notice my reaching of consensus of both issues with a variety of editors to that page: Southphilly instead accused me of vandalism, and has repeatedly reverted me, even as everyone else was expressing support for what I had done. Until Evrik took his wikibreak, he was also doing the same thing, and has also blatently canvassed people against me and other editors. I am finding this very wearing, and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator could please take a good look at this, as not only I, but three other editors have expressed their concerns that evrik and Southphilly are trying to own the project. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Awards

Action needs to be taken on this. See here for background. Evrik has now returned and he and southphilly are tagteaming each other in reverting against consensus. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dev920 has tried to hijack the WikiProject and is trying to force through the outcome she wants. She is being disruptive and is LYING. She is the one who is being harmful. --South Philly 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The page needs to be protected. --South Philly 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm lying? Who is accusing editors of vandalism for reverting the page to the version agreed by all editors except you? Really, if anyone thinks I'm lying, go read the talkpage, see all the editors lining up to disprove Southphilly's assertion. Look through the history, note the point at which southphilly realised that if he called for a vote he would lose it and took to reverting without explanation, or accusing editors of vandalism. Who's lying? It sure ain't me, it ain't Fredrick, it isn't Kathryn, or thuglas, or Michael, or WJBscribe, or any other editor who has supported my edits. Note that editing the page at any way Southphilly doesn't like is "hijacking", even though everyone else supports - WP:OWN anyone? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What you mean at the right version? the one where you try and exclude most wikipedians from having a say? --Fredrick day 17:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• People are welcome to comment, but otherwise its open to vote stacking. --South Philly 17:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

→ WikiProject Council or WP:Mediation guys. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

why? it's a straight forward WP:OWN - the actual co-ordinator bit is just the backdrop - the fundemental issue is an editor trying to remove/degrade the comments of others. --Fredrick day 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. It's a project for putting little decorations on other people's userpages -- I can only assume the purpose of this is to increase general morale and 'wikilove' -- and you're quibbling about who will be in charge? Give each other some awards, forget your concern for your own titles, eliminate the various levels of membership, and then get to the business of increasing wikilove. If you find this an important goal, pursue it; it certainly does not require a coordinator. Internal bickering wastes the community's time and distracts from your project's purpose. — Dan | talk 17:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Go tell that to southphilly and evrik. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I would remove the levels of membership, as everyone agrees with you - except southphilly and evrik, who keep putting it back against consensus, along with teh coordinator stuff and attenpts to restrict voting to members. Really, I think it's stupid too, but that isn't stopping them crying vandal. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually have no interest in who is in charge or the project - I only became involved because I queried the WP:OWN practices on the page. --Fredrick day 17:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Kirill below)Can I please ask an administrator to actually review the talkpage in question. Saying " This is stupid, just remove the membership" is all very well, but one may notice that there is a bloody-minded determination on the part of southphilly and evrik to prevent me from doing just that. If I revert one more time to the consensus version (read the page and one will find I am right) I will be breaking 3RR, and I'm fed up with southphilly just going "no, it's vandalism", even when I point out that three other people at least agree with me against southphilly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Far be it from me to criticize the idea of coordinators in general (although, honestly, why a twenty-member project that doesn't appear to actually do anything needs one, I don't know), but the behavior here is quite unseemly. WikiProjects should not try to fight the community at large; if people are concerned enough about your behavior to actively complain, it's a pretty good sign that you're doing something wrong. Trying to silence such criticism, or to insist that non-members (a silly distinction, in any case) have no voice, is utterly inappropriate. Kirill Lokshin 18:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I left a note requesting a mediation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dev920 objected to my role with the Barnstars. She acted boldly and removed me. A poll was put up by South Philly, Dev920 modified the poll. The whole things has gone back and forth. I want to participate, but I'm not sure what my role here is. --evrik ^(talk) 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what to do about this edit here. I came back from the weekend to find the edit war going on. Really, I think that Dev920 started the whole thing with this edit. I am perfectly happy to abide by the results of the poll, but think that leaving that section off pensing the resolution of the poll rewards her agressive behaviour. --evrik ^(talk) 18:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. The original discussion, in which I had no part, made it utterly clear that the role of a coordinator was a opposed, and furthermore, when southphilly put evrik forward as a candidate, every subsequent editor opposed. Evrik appointed himself coordinator anyway. That wasn't being bold, that was upholding consensus. However, after an edit war, southphilly tried to get around my quite reasonable assertion that the coordinator section main page beared absolutely no relation to the discussion it was based on by holding yet another poll. My change of the poll was also to reflect objections that the poll was closed to non-members, even though it affects everyone who ever receives an award. If Evrik wants to participate, he can contribute to discussions like every other normal member instead of reverting everything he doesn't like. I, and everyone else, have no objection to that, what we object to are his attempts to rule the project. (accusing me of "hijacking" for the crime of actually editing? Please.) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's not exactly true, but why let the facts get in the way of a good argument. --evrik ^(talk) 18:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm certainly not seeing any facts from you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Evrik was nominated, and he accepted. He was doing the job anyway and everyone on the wikiproject was fine with it. Dev920 didnt like the way he was running things so she joined the wikiproject and removed him as coordinator without asking anyone. I can site the relevant links if you want me to ... is that proof enough? --South Philly 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant links, relevant links, now, where is that most relevant link? Oh yeah, the original discussion about having a coordinator. Now, who was it who nominated evrik? Oh yeah, you. And who didn't want him? Oh yeah, everyone else. Now, unless you want to cite some magical link where some secret poll was held that confirmed that yes, we needed a coordinator, and yes, thet coordinator should be evrik, there's nothing much more to cite than that. The current poll is currently 8-1(you) against evrik remaining coordinator. But if you have other "proof", please, post it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Southphilly has reverted here and here against consensus, now not only that of the project, but also of the consensus here. Has he broken 3RR?

Looking back over this discussion, I'm seeing me posting links of all over the place and encouraging everyone to read the page. Evrik and southphilly, however, keep accusing me of lying, of telling half-truths, and saying that they have proof of this. Yet it never seems to show up. I wonder why. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

South Philly has taken it upon himself to repeatedly remove votes from the open poll to the "comments" section.[175],[176],[177]. I find this behavior most unacceptable, and disruptive.Proabivouac 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is... odd. I respectfully suggest to all parties involved that perspective has been lost, and that they should pause to reflect upon 1) what the purpose of this WikiProject is, and 2) how it benefits the encyclopedia. Personally, I see no need for any sort of bureaucracy here, with so few participants, and it seems to me that rules and procedures are being developed for, essentially, their own sake, which is not a good thing. The amount of discussion about who is a member of which category of members, and what that category means, is puzzling, at best. I would even say it's against the wiki philosophy, and suggest a straightforward list of participants until and unless some need for a bureaucracy is clearly shown -- but again, personal opinion. However... attempting to exclude participation by non-members is a serious problem, and perhaps an indication that the project's lost its way. All good-faith editors' contributions are of equal merit, in theory -- any structure that discounts opinions presented in good faith because those editors are "outsiders" is cliquish and reprehensible. I also agree with Proabivouac that removing others' comments is not acceptable behavior. Shimeru 20:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I wanted to address the comments about the size of the WP and the need for an admin. It's the the project size, but the scope of the work. The pages were created to try and make some order of the WP:BS anarchy, and the WikiProject was created to try and help build consensus and mediate disputes. I think that without some order, those pages will become anarchic and their utility to the community will be lessened. --evrik ^(talk) 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Okay. But... honestly, how do you think appointing yourself coordinator has helped to build consensus or mediate disputes? It seems rather to have caused disputes. I know these questions may sound arch, but they're meant as real questions: Exactly how have you been able to advance the project or the encyclopedia by acting as "coordinator"? And what tradeoff setbacks, if any, do you see have been made? Shimeru 10:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy?

Trying to look at this objectively, despite what Dev920 says, there was a general agreement that some coordination was needed, but there was no consensus on how to do this. I was nominated to coordinate here, which I then accepted. I was also listed as the coordinator – and there was no objection for a couple weeks. Is that consensus?

The next month, Dev920 summarily removes me. From there that page has gone back and forth about whether or not there is a coordinator.

A poll was started, and then that too has gone back and forth.

There has been a lot of opinion about this whole thing, but there has been almost no recitation of policy. So I have five questions.

1. Is there a policy about how a wikiproject determines who will lead or guide it (besides consensus)?
2. Is consensus achieved from lack of opposition? If so, how long does a question have to sit?
3. Is there a policy on the removal of such a person?
4. Is there a policy about polling people?
5. Is there a policy about who can vote in a poll?

I thought I was nominated to be coordinator, and was WP:AGF. My concern at this point is that rather than build consensus among the project members, Dev920 just acted, without even building consensus. If you look at the history, Dev920’s consensus to act was an agreement of two users. This started over disagreements on how two awards were handled. It should be obvious that I agree with South Philly about process and vote stacking, and disagree with Dev920 – but I’d like to get some objective answers to the five questions listed above.

Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 21:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a clear example of WP:CREEP, with some incivility and bad assumption? DanBeale 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

that I agree with South Philly about process and vote stacking - are you accusing editors of acting improperly in saying that the role of co-ordinator should be removed? why are they stacking votes? Why do you feel that normal wikipedia policies and guidelines do not apply to this project? You accept that it is standard wikipedia process that ANY editor can have a say about a project?

You ask one really one relevent question:

Is there a policy about who can vote in a poll? the answer is summed up in one sentence "wikipedia, the encylopedia anyone can edit". People get confused what wikiprojects are, they are just another set of community pages with a specific function, they work by the agreement of the those who share the goals of the wikiproject. However this is sometimes confused to mean that the people within the project have some special powers over the project pages - they don't. Those are community pages and thus South philly has ZERO authority to try and prevent any wikipedian in good standing, offering suggestions or saying "no this post of co-ordinator is not required". Membership of a project might be desirable to some but it is NOT required for a wikipedian to comment, offer suggestions or take part in any discussion that impact on wikipedia policy or process. Any attempts to prevent wikipedians having their say will be strongly resisted - the concept that only special people get to vote seems to me to against the spirit of the community (ARBCOM occupies a different space and purpose so the same does not apply there), As for removing the post - well the community is quite clearly saying "no it's unrequired" - that's all the policy that is needed. --Fredrick day 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsensical. This project should either shape up or be deleted. Just my opinion, I just joined because I like the barnstars but was wary due to the nonsense above. You would think that WikiProject Coordinator was something to be bestowed a place of honor on one's resume. Heh.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 22:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki. We don't have coordinators. If someone takes a key role in something it is usually because they have unceremoniously taken on a huge responsibility, and continue in the role because they have the trust of the community. They often ask similarly trusted people to help them in their efforts. These people rarely throw their weight around (and if so, usually for a very good reason) and don't claim any special rights or powers. They operate under the consensus guidelines. They are basically grunts with respect. I distrust anyone who claims to coordinate anything. I admire people who quietly get work done and don't claim any special role. So I'd suggest that this coordinator battle be solved by abandoning the entire idea of a coordinator. -- Samuel Wantman 08:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Samuel. Kirill is coordinator for WikiProject Military history because he puts in a lot of work; acknowledging his contributions with a title is the least we can do. From reading this thread, I'm not clear about what they've done to make this WikiProject a success. How about they simply stop this fighting & just make some contributions? -- llywrch 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST is huge. They essentially want someone to... um, blame if something goes wrong. But the best coordinator (or administrator, or bureaucrat, or anything) is the one that rarely, if ever, pulls rank, as Samuel indicates above. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dev920 has now taken over de facto control of the wikiproject by ousting Evrik. --South Philly 18:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

...right. Because evrik isn't posting on the awards page right now, and didn't just archive two awards. Also, I "control" the project because evrik allegedly isn't there, even though Smomo just rubbished my proposed intro and wrote another one which I agreed is better? You have serious power issues, mate. Stop making yourself look silly. 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody wanna help me block open proxies?

The George Reeves Vandal/BoxingWear person has been vandalising my user talk page ever since I protected his favorite vandalism target, the talk page of Rocky Marciano. Every one of his IPs which does not begin with 66.99 or 64.107 can be reliably blocked as an open proxy. If anyone wants to help I'd sure appreciate it.

Bigger issue: does anyone have any ideas on how to deal with this persistent pest? He reserves his worst abuse for the people who try to reason with him, so beware. He edits from the Chicago Public Library and Triton College (that's where he's at tonight, at least until they kick him out). Antandrus (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the public library but have you tried sending a note to Triton? JoshuaZ 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well it's a pain while it's happening, but think of it as a service to the project - the more open proxies we find and block, the better off we are :-) Guy (Help!) 11:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. He can help us smoke 'em out. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, would people please keep an eye open for his persistent returns to the noticeboard, sneakily vandalising this section itself? Thanks much, Antandrus (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate userpage by Saikano

Resolved

There's a new user I've been trying to WP:ADOPT and steer the right way (somewhat unsuccessfully). The user has a history of inappropriate edits, but is not a vandal-only account. Recently I noticed this diff. I'm not quite sure if it should just have gone to AIV or if someone else should have a word with him. —dgies^t_c 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe I recall a report on this user on this page previously, too. x42bn6 Talk 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There was, regarding his userpage and signature, I believe. A similar issue. As to the matter at hand... mm, I don't know. From a look at his contributions, his behavior seems to have gotten a little better, but at the same time, I don't know whether he's ever made any useful contributions. Not sure I'd write him off just yet. Will drop him a note. Shimeru 20:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

His behavior hasn't really improved. We told him to make more article space edits if he wanted to improve, but he hasn't. He continues to try to use Wikipedia as a social networking site and hub for his non-notable anti-child porn organization. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mm, so it seems. Well, given his subsequent response to the messages, I have to support the block. Doesn't look like he's taking things very seriously at all. Shimeru 22:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just nominating it for MfD and I saw it already went through one a few weeks ago for much the same nonsense. I have tagged as CSD G4. —dgies^t_c 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This user's already been blocked indefinitely for continued disruption, and the user page was deleted for containing personal information, so I imagine we're done here. --Coredesat 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Shomari15 (talk · contribs)

This user has been nothing but disruptive, vandalizing and uploading a large number of improperly tagged pictures, contributing to the huge backlog currently at WP:CSD. He only has a handful of useful contributions I can see. I'm going through his logs to delete his pictures, and I gave him a final warning, after considering blocking him indef on sight as a disruption-only account. (Just look at that talk page... And no blocks!) Please monitor this user and consider blocking indef if this continues... I really don't think it's worth our time trying to work with someone like this otherwise. In fact, I wouldn't mind if you did it now. Grandmasterka 02:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User reported at WP:AIV. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? I'm an administrator, I'm asking for review here. Grandmasterka 02:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry if I jumped the gun. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why wasn't (s)he given warnings for the vandalism edits? RJASE1 ^Talk 02:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmasterka did warn him, just above your warning. A warning isn't defined by coming from a template or having a Stop icon in it, you know :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:18Z

Shomari15 reminds me a lot of Blobba (talk · contribs) who I recently blocked for a week, who also has sockpuppets... but I see one subtle difference in MO which I won't mention here. This pattern of behavior seems to be not uncommon -- either that, or a long-term troll that's much smarter than he pretends to be. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:21Z

Looks like User:Grandmasterka had enough and blocked him indefinitely - should be able to close this report. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Known bigoted user subtly subverting Wikipedia again

Hi, I would like to bring to your notice the noxious effect the user User:Dbachmann is having on Wikipedia. This user is a known to hold deep-seated prejudices against Hindus and Indians. His run-ins with Indian Wikipedia editors are well known.

This time, this user has gone ahead and created three redirect pages that link to Indigenous Aryan Theory page. The titles of the pages are

Hindutva revisionism [178]

Hindutva pseudoscience [179]

Hindutva propaganda [180]

As any mature reader can see, terms like revisionism, pseudoscience and propaganda are inherently disapproving and dismissive in nature. They give out negative vibes about the value of a theory even when used in isolation. To understand the unease they give to an average Indian reader, please try to substitute “Hindutva” word with Jewish or Christian, and try to feel the impact. If Wikipedia does not have any page like Jewish propaganda or Christian propaganda, why bestow this honor on Hindus?

This user, who amazingly is also an admin, has a long and winding history of offending Indians, which includes hurling choicest expletives at them. I would be interested in knowing if Wikipedia has any ideas to rein in this person.

Sisodia 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean Dbachmann. IrishGuy ^talk 02:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

let's delete Cargo cult science and Category:Pseudoscience then. Can't have terms on Wikipedia that are "inherently disapproving". dab (𒁳) 07:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFD. If the user is behaving in a way that cannot be resolved through disucssion, open a WP:RFC. Jkelly 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I meant User:Dbachmann. I corrected the spelling.

Sisodia 02:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Those redirects are a bit curious. The article they point to currently has an interesting looking AFD. Your allegations are serious, though, and if you provided diffs, I'm sure they'd get looked at. Friday (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my accusations but I will spare you the diffs, because I am quite certain nothing is going to happen to him. This user is impervious to reason. Also, frequent leniency by the Wikipedia admins has emboldened him to a point where he fancies himself above the norms of civil language. Therefore I do not want to risk finding myself at the receiving end of his diatribes.

Please just ask him to delete these redirect pages. If I or any Indian editor tells him to do it, he won’t.

Sisodia 03:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking him simply because you say so is frivolous. If you are here to accuse us of negligence instead, then I suggest you review your own actions. We're trying to help you here, not to face a barrage of accusations, then have you whining that you're not getting your way because you're not cooperating. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not as if I am being uncooperative. I just did not want to scratch old wounds. But since you insist on proof, here is one as a sample

[[181]]

Here this user not only curses all Indians in general with deeply offensive abuses, he also grandly proclaims that “Wikipedia is not for them (i.e. Indians)”. What a revelation! One billion souls disenfranchised with a stroke of pen! Does this convince you that this user needs some attitude correction?

Sisodia 04:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably would be good to mention that there is a current RfC on Dbachmann (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann), a related AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Aryan Theory), and an ongoing mediation on Talk:Indigenous Aryan Theory. Just sayin'. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how this is an "incident", but I could certainly do with some admins backing up my eternal struggle with our resident propagandists. Help prevent Wikipedia from becoming a platform for national mysticism and shoddy pseudo-scholarship (um, more than it already is, that is). Look into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Aryan Theory and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Kazanas while you're at it. It will also be instructive to review block log and contribs of Sisodia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (was involved in an arbcom case within two weeks of his registring). [Yes, this is a call for you to get involved here. Don't leave me sitting in it for another two months, and then tsk me disapprovingly as you find me in the middle of a ring of screaming Indian patriots two monts from now] Thanks, dab (𒁳) 07:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how it's an incident either. The "one as a sample" diff (from 2005) is an old acquaintance, it's the same old everlasting diff that always gets trotted out and misread against Dbachmann by the resident propagandists. "Curses all Indians in general with deeply offensive abuses", "Wikipedia is not for them (i.e. Indians)" is a ludicruos reading of it. Dbachmann has explained many times to the determinedly reading-impaired what he's really saying there, so it's hard to assume any good faith on the part of Sisodia and his sampling, and his unwillingness to "scratch old wounds" (I can't believe I read that phrase). Dbachmann is an excellent admin and editor, and as he says, he has been left alone to deal with these problems and to be subjected to the kind of mob talk seen above—"noxious effects on Wikipedia", indeed. Dbachmann, I'm not sure what kind of involvement you're calling for, though. How can I get involved, short of going to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which hurts my soul ? Bishonen | talk 10:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

looking at AfD hurts your soul, Bish? :) well, I would appreciate a lot more admins keeping the notorious troublespots on their watchlists (viz., a, b, c, d, e, and much of Category:Hindutva), revert propagandistic additions, warn and block users for trolling talkpages, and look out for sock patterns (I am quite sure I various conversations I am having with borderline trolls are in fact with one and the same person, but if I take every new account to sockcheck, there will be a lot of negative results, too, so I'll look daft either way). I hadn't even seen that 2005 diff was being handed around again. It may be time to reconsider Dmcdevit's old indefban again, too. dab (𒁳) 12:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just one suggestion dab... if they're calling you things like a bigot, and you them some things equally unflattering, why not just deal with any of the other many matters here and stop with the confrontations? If your emotions are engaged on anything in these pages so far that you're willing to resort to intemperate language, it's a sure sign you need to let that page or pages be watched over by almost anyone else. Certainly counter name calling is over the top, never mind how provoked. At least yell for help here and get a few others involved. They simply don't pay us enough to act in any less measured manner. Save the emotion for the tasks that pay the rent, buys the new wheels, nice vacations, and puts the kids through good schools, not something that isn't going to change your retirement fund, save in negative ways. Best wishes, but letting that patrol go to someone else would be 'way overdue', from the looks of it. // FrankB 15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

with all due respect, "yell for help here and get a few others involved" is precisely what I am doing, right above your post. I am an editor in these topics, I'm not there as "uninvolved admin", but if you're going to write and guard the articles for me, I will thank you (I hope you have a background in historical linguistics, archaeology and ancient history, then). As for "intemperate language" or "name calling", I am always open to accept criticism in that field. Would you mind pointing me to any (post-2005, if possible, 2007) incidence you object to? As far as I am aware, I didn't even descend to reacting to the "bigoted". As for "paying the rent", you will be surprised to learn my "real job" as well as my "real life" is taking place off-wiki. dab (𒁳) 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the person who raised the RfC aginst DBachmann. I was forced into this action because Dab refuses to be reasonable. One mediation effort failed last month (because of him). Dab refuses to participate in another mediation effort currently ongoing. The reason for RfC is that Dab has no respect for WP:ATT, he is publishing original research on Wikipedia. Removes OR tag or Fact tags without providing citations and in last 4 months I have yet to see a single citation from him that checks out. What he quotes in Wikipedia is different from what citied material says. If anyone has views different from him, they automatically get hate labels. He uses derogatory terms for published authors[[182]]. He starts edit warring and then uses his admin power to block users in content dispute. All relevent details are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann.

My question to other admin is that does Dbachmann have exemption from following basic policies like WP:ATT.Sbhushan 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason that 2005 diff is still doing the rounds is that the last known position of Bachmann on the issue was that he “does not see any need to apologize”. Otherwise I would have buried the matter long ago.

Anyway, forget that incidence. The matter that is getting sidestepped in this din is that why do there exist article titles like “Hindutva pseudoscience” and “Hindutva propaganda”, when no such articles exist for any other faith. Is it fair standard for an encyclopedia? Is it fair behavior for an admin? And lastly but not least, are you sure it does not violate any anti-discrimination or anti-racial laws of every country which accesses Wikipedia? I think the matter is more serious than most people are thinking it to be.

Sisodia 18:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann is opened, that is a more appropriate venue for you concerns than here. It will be given the attention it deserves. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I added my grievances (rants if you please) in that RFC. Let’s see if Wikipedia deletes these redirects pages or not. I just wanted to point out the fact in Europe, people can be, and have been jailed for calling Holocaust a Jewish propaganda. It is the issue of equal treatment of all religions/ethnicities. If Mr. Bachmann has to offend people, at least let him be equal opportunity offender. Sisodia 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion? This is the proper venue to object to redirects, the RFC is more about the users behavior. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Ethnic Cleansing

Resolved

Khoikhoi is continually removing any reference to the term "Bosnian Muslim" on the Ethnic Cleansing article, and is also trying to reword it in a POV manner at Bosniaks. I have provided 3 respected sources that show "Bosnian Muslim" is commonly used in the English speaking world, and it is in no way offensive to Bosniaks. Please someone help.

Also, I noticed that after I reverted Bosniaks, a user called Kraf001 reverted to the POV version - his first edit since 11 November 2006, which is almost 4 months ago. Coincidence? Former Anon 06:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the Complaint Department. You've aleady got this in Dispute Resolution, leave it there. --InShaneee 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to a legal complaint form

I don't know if this edit on Talk:Ejaculation by Infofreak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) constitutes a legal threat, but the user ends his/her post with an external link to a page on the Florida Attorney General website that contains a printable legal complaint form. I suppose at least the link should be removed as it seems to encourage filing legal charges, but I'm bringing this here for further review. Prolog 09:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a huge misunderstanding on the standpoint of Wikipedia and censorship. I've heard that Jimbo himself can put hardcore pornography on the Main Page and it would still be legal. It's not a nice thing to say because I think it does scare people who don't understand Wikipedia's stance in law. I would remove the comment. x42bn6 Talk 13:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a borderline legal threat. I'm not going to block the maker because I don't think it's a call to imminent legal action, but I will remove the talk page message and warn him/her. If it happens again, the user should be blocked, imo. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored the talk page comment before I was aware of this ANI thread. I don't see the comment as a legal threat. I see it as an argument that Wikipedia is on shaky ground by hosting certain types of images whithout following US law on things like age checks. Warning us about what the user perceives (rightly or wrongly) to be the natural consequence of our actions is a good thing, it is not a threat.

The user does not say they are filing legal action and they don't ask anyone else to do so. I think if they wanted to file a legal action they would just do it. If linking to the external form is a deemed inappropriate, then I suggest that just that part of the comment should be removed. Johntex\^talk 15:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This isn't a mere notification of what the law says (which I agree would be appropriate), it is an invitation to legal action. WP:NLT doesn't require a legal threat to be specific. The user is inviting an unnamed "someone" to take a legal action against Wikimedia. The user is not posting a reference to a law in furtherance of his or her position on the matter, but merely stating that if someone files a complaint with the FL atty general, Wikipedia will be screwed. This clearly falls outside the accepted form of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. Most importantly, it functions to chill vigorous talk page debate on the subject by implying that a legal complaint could be filed if the image remains. This isn't a call to imminent legal action (which isn't a criterion at WP:NLT, by the way), but is functionally a threat against Wikimedia. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As Jersyko mentions above, this particular comment seems to assist in the process of filing a legal charge, and invite readers/Wikipedians to do it. I support the removal of the entire comment, as nothing stops this user, or anybody else, to comment on this issue in a non-threatening way. Prolog 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT requires a threat to be a threat. Saying "someone could..." is not a threat to do anything. Johntex\^talk 16:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But this isn’t saying ‘someone could’. This is ‘someone could, here’s how and where, and this might happen unless my position in this content debate is accepted as the correct one… Nice place you have here. Shame if something was to happen to it, eh?’ —xyzzy_n 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"It's a nice encyclopedia you've got there. It would be a shame if someone tried to sic the Florida attorney general's office on it." Er, sounds kind of threatening, especially since the editor is using the warning to try to force a particular outcome to a content dispute. Even though I agree with the editor about the utility of the image in that article, he's going about it the wrong way. We're not designed or equipped to handle questions of law on article talk pages. Legal concerns need to go through Brad and the Foundation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Users are not playing nice

User:Chuck0 has been warned for writing personal attacks on various talk pages including his own talk page done in association with the revert and edit wars between User:Chuck0 and User:Anarcho-capitalism in the Anarchism in the United States and Social anarchism articles, waged on the claim from User:Chuck0 that anarcho-capitalism isn't a form of anarchism argumented by the counter claim from User:Anarcho-capitalism that it is a form of anarchy.

Furthermore the above is a mere incident in a greater whole. Endless philosophical debates that doesn't present any new arguments are being written all over the anarchy related talk pages regarding the disagreement whether or not anarcho-capitalism are to be represented among anarchy related articles based on viewpoints from various users debating such in articles like Talk:Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, Talk:Anarchism and Portal talk:Anarchism addition to the above.

It has from what I can distinguish become a sitution with no ending in sight, making every anarchy page on wikipedia a battlefield between people of either the viewpoint that anarcho-capitalism is an anarchy and should be presented on various appropiate anarchy articles or those who don't think it is an anarchy and it shouldn't be represented on anarchy articles. Many people including me has become involved in this battle of what can probably be seen as POV pushing from both sides because of the obvious bias. People can not let go of the strong emotions that politics in the same way religion brings forward and which have become a problem for further editing articles.

I am seeking help to resolve this situation by maybe an administrator could perhaps arbitrary decide on how to further develope the articles in the upcomming future. Lord Metroid 12:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like it needs a sack of fact taggings and some related trimming when it fails WP:V, by a crew of nursemaids. Anyone have time for an edit war? But seriously, maybe posting a request for additional help on WP:AMA or WP:MEDCAB will draw some additional talent. The more outsiders that weigh in, the faster the flames will get damped out. // FrankB 15:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I Don't Want My Account Deleted Updated

• One of the below contributers keeps adding a Bananarama hits song chart under the Careless Whisper article;even tho the song was made by the artist Wham.Bananarama's hit list does not belong under a song made by another artist!It belongs under the Bananarama article.You can't add a song hits chart for every artist that covered this song especialy sense all the artists that covered the song have links to their own articles, (including Bananarama).It would be distracting from the article,as it would take up more space than the article itself,and thus be a disservice,and pointless!I keep tryin to tell them this but everytime I erase it,he/she adds it back on.Then after I erased it a few times,he/she has the gul to write this secret messege in the article for me:

NOTE:

Please DO NOT REMOVE ANY OF THE BELOW LINES.

Removing them will be considered VANDALISM and your changes will be undone.

Persistent removal of the below lines may cause you not to be able to edit this page.

Thank you for reading.

Like I am the vandal?Regardless of this,the side bar of information,on the right side of the article (I don't know what the technical term for it is,I'm new to this)has a special box just for Bananarama,as if they wrote the song.This is favortism,and it's not allowed in an encylopedia.One of these persons is obviously a Bananarama fan.I am not able to remove this side bar of Bananarama info.An adminstrator or someone with more power needs to check out the editing history (where I got these names from) and do something 'bout this.Warn the user who is doing this,or lock the article,something,please!!!!

• 75.110.78.24
• 68.237.1.23
• 75.84.216.180
• 65.7.83.48
• Coredesat
• 193.52.234.176
• 207.69.139.7
• SmackBot
• Flyingtoaster1337

Natthegreat 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• We almost never delete accounts. I've checked the article Careless Whisper and the Bananarama official website, and they did indeed release a cover of it in 2001. So the box seems to make some sense. Can you list for us, briefly, what you would like correcting? Thanks! 〈REDVEЯS〉 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• You may want to click the "discussion" link at the top of the article and discuss the issue there. If you go to WP:RFC, and follow the instructions there for article disputes, you can ask for others who have an interest in that topic to offer assistance. You really don't need an administrator - you need someone who knows about music. --BigDT 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this is what appears to be a new user being freaked out by a user who doesn't know how to use the the talk page them selves. And I dont think the issue is about the inclusion of the info box so much. For the record, I feel that User:Natthegreat is correct. The info box should just contain the first recording artist, Otherwise the page would just be full of info boxes. I'll keep a watch on the page and help them out if needed. Munta 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly not sure what this has to do with me, all I did was remove a redlink on Careless Whisper. --Coredesat 22:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Tenis4kr (talk · contribs)

Dear Wikipedia,

I accidentally added my URL to the bottom of the links list on many horse related sites. I did not know that this was illegal. All of these were done on the same day so I did not recieve a warning message from you until I had posted all of these. I have stopped since I recived the first message (as a result I ask that my site please not be placed on the blacklist) I am realy writing because I have recieved a nasty email from one of your users that was absolutely uncalled for. I understand that someone might be upset about what happened but there is no reason to call someone a "dumbass". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenis4kr (talk • contribs)

Don't do it again and I think you have nothing to fear. And please accept my personal apology for that other person's bad behaviour. --BenBurch 17:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Owie123 (talk · contribs)

This user has just recreated the same cross-namespace page to his user page for the eighth ninth time. He has been repeatedly warned (he's deleted all the warnings). I'm on my way to work, I think this warrants a short block or an incredibly stern warning. John Reaves (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the redirect against recreation, I reckon that enough action. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Please note that this user 20th edit was a RfA self-nomination. The rest of the edits have all been user namespace-based edits. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice this user is still blanking their talk page, though they have created a partial archive of sorts (User talk:Owie123/descution1). But lots of editors-in-supposedly-good-standing do similar things with their pages, so further action on that score probably isn't warranted (annoying as it is). Alai 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet problem: User:StudyAndBeWise User:170.215.40.207

This user, a sockpuppet of an indefbanned user, reported by Orangemarlin at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd), ended his recent career with a lengthy series of attacks on me. (See pretty much every contribution on Special:Contributions/170.215.40.207) User:Akhilleus encouraged me to make a request for something to be done, and pointed out he has made a request for judgement at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive211#self-identifying_sockpuppets.2C_block_requested. However, while I would like this sorted, I am in no position to be able to claim I could act neutrally, and must ask others to do so. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nnatan (talk · contribs)

Resolved

It appears that User:Nnatan, operating from an IP address (that is, not logged in), has made a legal threat with reference to the article Solomon's Temple. - Jmabel | Talk 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I gave them a warning (on both the IP talk page and user talk page) regarding the edits to the talk page insinuating legal threats.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia recruiting

Resolved

How do we feel about User:Regional123, who created an account yesterday for the sole purpose of soliciting Wikipedia admins to join Conservapedia? See Regional123's contribs. NawlinWiki 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally would endorse an indef block for such an SPA. However, its best to hear what others say first.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would treat it like any spam(in other words what Persian Poet Gal said). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Shoot 'em spammers. Yuser31415 20:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked by A Man In Black.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Darn. I think it would be useful for them to recruit editors to write articles like Pierce Butler, which state as fact, "Pierce Butler (1866-1939) was perhaps the finest Supreme Justice ever." They don't even have an article about Minnesota, so I wonder how budding young conservatives will learn about the state. Maybe it's just flyover country. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Different project, different rules and priorities. No sense sniping. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Conservapedia, may want to keep an eye on Davey138 (talk · contribs) - just registered and made these kinds of edits. MastCell 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unauthorized bot

Resolved

RJASE1 passes the Turing test and is apparently a flesh-and-blood human. Link (ir)relevance issues should rather be discussed more directly. Миша13 21:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that User:RJASE1 is an unauthorized bot. Look how fast he does dozens of edits, all with the same edit summary (which I believe is false, nowhere is there a centralized list of banned URLS per WP:EL.)[183] Nardman1 20:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He's not. Shadow1 (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Then he should be blocked for vandalism. Not only are the edit summaries unhelpful, but he's using some kind of unapproved centralized list to remove links. Turns out some other users are as well, including User:Betacommand. Nardman1 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Making mass edits without discussing them goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Nardman1 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing bulk spam edits doesn't require discussion. IrishGuy ^talk 20:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He is just removing links, he isn't a bot. The summary doesn't allude to a centralized list of URLs but instead is pointing out which URL he removed and his reasoning (WP:EL violation). All the links he is removing are from the same domain hence the summary being identical for each edit. IrishGuy ^talk 20:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at the links he's removing to see if they were inappropriate links before accusing him of vandalism? He's removing 2 or 3 a minute. Not an unrealistic rate at all. Leebo ^T/C 20:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some of them might be inappropriate, but mexicanfood.about.com isn't a spam link, and when I asked Betacommand about why he removed it, his answer was rather vague. [184]. If they are going to call other people's hard work spam and then remove it from the Encyclopedia I think it's fair I have access to discuss the link list they're using. Nardman1 21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The link to mexicanfood.about.com is not necessary in the Aguas frescas article. Even if you dislike the word "spam" it's not necessary in the article and doesn't meet WP:EL. It's perfectly understandable for it to be removed. Leebo ^T/C 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There you go about it. WP:EL DOES NOT BAN THIS LINK. Instead of insisting it does, why not explain why it does? User:Beetstra's answer to this question is similarly unhelpful [185] Nardman1 21:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was rather helpful. RJASE1 was just doing some external link cleanup, it's not like it's a radically new process on Wikipedia that requires approval from Jimbo. Shadow1 (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL sets standards for external links; the onus is on the person adding the link to show that it meets the requirements of WP:EL, not on the person deleting it to show that WP:EL BANS IT (to borrow your phrasing). WP:EL is quite clear in its criteria for a good external link. At any rate, mass addition of an external link, even if it appears to satisfy WP:EL, is not allowed by WP:SPAM. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I would say that he is using a monobook script that GeorgeMoney wrote to do mass removals of inappropriate links. I've used it myself on occasion; I don't have the URL handy at the moment. Removing links isn't vandalism, it's more janitorial work than anything else. Shadow1 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely report that I am not a bot - I was removing mass links to this particular website (doing janitorial work, as Irishguy says). I fully believe that what I was doing was in compliance with WP:EL - the links seemed to me to be promoting this particular site and added nothing beyond what the articles would include if they became featured articles. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So you admit there's a central list of links to be removed. Such obscurity is unhelpful to a free encyclopedia. Nardman1 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say anything like that? Where are you getting that, and why are you being confrontational at the same time? Leebo ^T/C 21:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I saw the link being added in the RSS feed and then searched web links for articles linked to this site. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a central list of links to be WATCHED, that's what the linkwatcherbots do, and then forward it to a channel, so we can review it. There is also a list of bad sites that are reverted on sight by a bot, but it is a very exclusive list - example.com and such. The bot only watches NS0 and only reverts once before referring it to a human. This isn't a cabal, and it isn't a conspiracy. Assume Good Faith without compelling evidence to the contrary. ST47Talk 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts; conform RJASE1)The link mexicanfood.about.com was added by user:mexicanfood (example addition). Upon reverting I encountered a number of linkfarms containing links to recipes. Per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY (not a linkfarm) and WP:EL (external links should be kept to a minimum) they were removed. As a further explanation; I believe that the information can be incorporated into wikibooks (using {{cookbook}} here), which makes all these links to recipes unnecessary. Moreover, WP:EL gives the possibility to link to a linkfarm ({{dmoz}}), which would in this case be better (unbiased; a google search on Aquas frescas gives 536,000 hits). In case you were wondering what list we were working from, see here. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I even tried to advise the user here but they went back to adding links - that and the name convinced me it was a spammer. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That link posted by Beetstra only had one entry and that link had highly unpleasant levels of advertising so I removed it. I guess that means they have all been nuked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess also for the record, about the speed of edits and the assertion that he is a bot. 3 to 4 edits per minutes is not too difficult to do. I have done that pretty easy manually doing vandalism patrol (before I got popups or stuff like that). with popups or other tools, it becomes even easier to edit that rapidly. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)