Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive348

Problem with a user

Resolved

Not sure if this is the right place to put this - but I'll give it a shot: By chance I have come across a user who is persistently using images with copy violation. The bots are spotting it. They are putting warnings on his talk page. He then blanks the talk page and starts over again. By the look of it, this has been going on for some months. I get the impression that various users have also mentioned this to him. But, again, he blanks the talk page and then carries on. I'm not sure what to do. Suggestions/Admin intervention most welcome! Marcus22 (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence so it is possible to investigate further. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, Marcus22 is referring to User:Max24 Whitstable (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, yes. I didnt really want to name the user. But if you look at his talk page history, it looks like this has been going on on a major scale for at least all of 2007. There are other issues as well, but I think this is probably the most important for Wikipedia as a whole. Marcus22 (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually my only sin is to blank my own discussion page instead of archive it properly. That's all. User Marcus22 is angry at me because of All by Myself article and that's why he came with this copy violation thing. Actually, the latest bots warnings were about the All by Myself article (because he removed the infobox with the covers). Anyway, I wish you all happy New year! Max24 (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I dont think anyone is angry at you. Fact is you have repeatedly used - on countless articles - copyright images. When notified of this by the Bots, you have deleted the warnings and, by the looks of it, reinstated those copyright images. That could drop a whole lot of trouble on Wikipedia. So why do it? Other users have also warned you about doing this - and other things - and yet you have pressed ahead. Please refrain. Marcus22 (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Gralou (talk · contribs) and uncivilness

Resolved

 – User blocked

This section in a nutshell: User:Gralou is making personal attacks and attempting to command me to do their bidding.

This user showed up at Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes earlier today with a brief message in response to a (now-defeated) merge proposal: "I have a good idea! Delete this article! It sucks!"diff So I politely pointed them to AfD. diff I then told them that "This article sucks" is not a valid reason for deletion. diff Then they told me that the article sucked because it didn't have the UK premiere dates for the episodes. diff So I told them to go ahead and add them and that while I didn't have a problem with it, other editors might. diff They then vandalised my userpage. diff I promptly gave them a level 4im warning (too harsh?) because I consider userpage vandalism to be the worst form of personal attack. diff They then told me that it was unfair. diff I then told them that if they didn't want to get blocked, then they shouldn't vandalise. diff (Here you may notice that I am getting agitated. I have a very hard time assuming good faith with people like Gralou.) Now, back to the talkpage. They posted a (probably agitated by the warning) message about how everything is US-centric and how he commands me to add the dates (despite the fact that I clearly don't live in the UK) because I act like the boss of the article. diff (In reality, I think I'm one of the only people with the article watchlisted and I end up replying to talk page questions). I really don't know what to do at this point. I'm almost afraid to respond for fear of worse userpage vandalism or a personal attack. Thanks in advance to whomever responds. NF24^{(radio me!)} 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Another user was indefinitely blocked for pretty much the same thing with the same arguments on the same article. I'm buggered if I can remember their name though. Seems to me this could be a "sockpuppet-type scenario". --WebHamster 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Im A Shark? The ironic thing is that they tried to order me around there too. Blocked 72 hours for uncivilness. NF24^{(radio me!)} 17:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked: Clearly here to troll. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page used for personal attacks (Resolved)

Resolved

Hi, blocked user 71.99.81.194 (talk · contribs) uses his talk page for personal attacks as a retaliation for block [1], [2], [3], [4]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the last and protected the talk page for the duration of the block. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User not observing WP:NPOV and WP:OR after posts on user talk page, article talk pages and edit summaries

Resolved

Editor Henq is repeatedly inserting original research into the following articles: House of Windsor, Saxe-Altenburg and Konrad, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen. When I remove the original research (which sometimes has lots of weasel words and personal hypothesizing) he reverts without going to the talk page where I posted and now isn't even using edit summaries other than "rv". Now, personally, I know a lot about the subject matter in the articles, but I won't even put what I know without sourcing it properly. I don't have any history with the editor, but given that he and I edit in the same types of articles it seems, I would like to have this dealt with so editing can continue peacefully. Here are some diffs of the original research: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12].

For a background as to why all of this is not only original research, but incorrect, see Ernestine duchies. These territories were always shuffled when a line became extinct so there were always multiple, equal heirs, not single heirs as Henq contends. That too, however, would be original research and the heirs should not be identified because they cannot be determined. Particularly for the House of Windsor article, Henq is hypothesizing some things and stating them as fact (for instance, the status of brides). I still maintain that he needs sources for these allegations which are best left out lest they be proven as false or unanswerable.

I will be happy to answer any questions if clarification is needed. Henq should be formally notified of the policies and that he should abide by them and he should remove his edits until he can source them with reliable sources. Charles 18:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also note this discussion: [13]. Sadly, I am finding that Henq does not have a particularly civil attitude about this, which may explain his constant reverts. Charles 18:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are seeing consistent reverts and insertion of unsourced information, that falls under edit warring and dispute resolution. You could seek a third opinion or mediation as well. If the edit warring continues, you could request temporary protection at WP:RPP. Avruchtalk 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Permanent block of 67.71.142.187 (Resolved)

Resolved

The address 67.71.142.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been permanently blocked, apparently due to being used by a banned user who had engaged in serious harassment (over a year ago). However (according to Eleland (talk · contribs), who has been affected by the block), it seems to be a dynamically assigned IP and as such does little to stop the banned user. At the moment I have solved the issue by changing it to a softblock. (Perhaps the block should be removed altogether; did the banned user attempt to return to Wikipedia recently?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask, as I've seen this term before, what's a softblock? Is there a hardblock? I'm just curious. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait, nevermind. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

To be completely clear, I changed the block parameters to only stop editing by unregistered users and registration of accounts; existing accounts may edit through the address. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the block length to 1 year. Indefs on IP's are silly as people change ISP's. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Strothra (resolved)

Resolved

User Strothra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps threatening me with absolutely irrelevant warning messages. It started with lying-summary revert of absolutely all good faith edits on Homophobia (which since then were re-instated by another user). He keeps leaving warnings despite my objection and response. Ignoring on-going discussion on my talk page re 1948 Arab-Israeli War he is leaving 'last-warning' message, branding my edits vandalism. I ask that user will be given appropriate warning and those warnings left by mentioned user be removed from my talk page. --87.198.133.62 (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the homophobia edits were vandalism, but the edits to 1948 Arab-Israeli War were rather POV (i.e. substituting "invasion" for "intervention"). bibliomaniac15 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the edits in question were, in fact, not vandalism and the warnings were inappropriate. Lara❤Love 20:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Laura - I noticed the anon IP's frequently contentious POV edit history on articles such as Six-Day War and assumed a vandal when I saw mass changes to the Homophobia article. Easy to jump to conclusions with the anons. We all make mistakes, I'm not the only one who has incorrectly identified vandalism : [14] [15]. Some should practice what they preach. --Strothra (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Page blankings by 121.45.181.31 (Resolved, content)

Resolved

 – content dispute

This day, Jan 1, 2008, unregistered user from the IP 121.45.181.31 has done several edits, that should be treated as vandalisms.
In the article about Julian March, he did several unexplained edits.
In 06:10, he did several changes with nationalistic exaggerations, as well as [16].
At 06:13, he removed the lines without explanation [17]. At 06:14, he removed English version of the name without any explanations on the talkpage [18].
At 06:15, [19] he has removed the categorization that claims this region as geography of Slovenia and Croatia. Slovenian users might give their opinions here also.
At 12:38, he has blanked the content of a page Gonars (without explanation), in which there was info about the concentration camp Gonars in Italy [20] .
At 12:40, he removed the adjective "concentration" in the article about Rab concentration camp [21] (from WWII). He obviously has never read the meaning of term "concentration camp" (concentrating a group of people who are in some way undesirable in one place, where they can be watched by those who incarcerated them). He probably treats it as any camp, like tourist camp?
At 12:44, following that, he removed the categorization [22].
In his following edit, at 12:46, [23], he inserts the line that completely misses the point. This edit should be in the other article, but by its style, his edit is much below the level of an encyclopedian article (grammar, essay-style).
His following edit from 12:48 follows the previous pattern [24]. Now we can say that his edits are intended relativization of this inhuman place.
Later in the afternoon, at 17:10, he continued with his edits. Here [25], he removed the paragraph and whole External links section. In that edit, he gave comment "Removed bs and made up nationalistic nonsense by user Zenanarh.".
Vocabulary like "bs" and calling the opponents' edits as "nationalist" (in the comments) was used by banned user Special:Contributions/Giovanni Giove.
Interesting, 9 days ago, on 23 Dec 2007 in 17:48, user:Cherso did similar vandalizing edit on this article (without explanation), when he blanked even more of it [26]. Note: the latter removed parts were dealing with serious political stuff, that spoke about recent revisionism, expansionism and irredentism of Italian high officials, and that section had refences to online sources (daily newspapers).
We should keep an eye on this one. Kubura (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I put the {welcomepov}} template on his page. If you think that he is abusing sockpuppetry, or a sockpuppet of a banned user, you should report it at the checkuser page. Some other action may be required based on NPA. Avruchtalk 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Between 29 and 31 December from the IP address 121.45.41.47, a person who may be the same (ab)user made a series of highly inflammatory pro-Italian, anti-Slavic disruptive edits. Firstly, at 13:20 on 29 Dec this [27]; then, after changing Carlo Marochetti from a French to an Italian sculptor [28], he appeared at the talk page of Italianization describing the article as "This is very biased nonsense against Italy, the Yugoslav forced assimilation was much worse. They murder many people" [29] followed up a few minutes later by "Anto you seem to oblivious to the fact that your great uncles came to your present day lands via force, raping and murdering and pillaging all in their path. Barbarians were what you were called and that tradition was carried on after WW2 where your people murdered civilians because they were Italian, the first ethnic cleansing in Europe. We stuck you in school and gave you an education even if it was in Italian, we didn't kill you". [30]. This was followed by a highly POV edit to Partisans (Yugoslavia), removing sourced material and replacing it with allegations based on his/her personal agenda [31].Ironically, the last (so far) contribution from this IP address was to claim at the Partisans talk page that "There is a lot information on this page which have no references including the following which are extremely biased and little more then opinion". [32]
I think it is clear that we are dealing with somebody who is not a newcomer and in fact may have been around Wikipedia for a while. Whether a sock of a banned user or not, I don't believe that the edit history over the last few days signals anything other than trouble to come from this source. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Pandyan Kingdom (resolved)

Resolved

I reported (in wrong place,sorry) a few weeks back about an edit war on Pandyan Kingdom. The page was protected for one week,but no one discussed the edits on the talk page whilst the block was in place. Block has now been lifted, and edit war has resumed,including using the edit summary to insult each other.

I know nothing about the topic, so I would not be able to say what version is correct. Could someone please step in and defuse the situation? Thanks. StephenBuxton (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to visit WP:RPP and request that the page protection be restored, perhaps for a longer period of time. Admins don't necessarily have content expertise, so an RfC or other step in dispute resolution may be in order. Avruchtalk 21:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've requested page protection, as you suggested. I had a look at the dispute resolution page. It looks like stage 2 is the correct stage for me (as a non-participant in the dispute), which boils down to page protection,or reporting it here andleaving it for the administrators to resolve. I have also posted a plea for civility on the talk page - I will also see about adding a link to the dispute resolution page. Would someone mind having a look at my post and perhaps add to it, in case there is anything else I missed off? I apologise for stating that their behaviour was akin to childish squabbling, but I wanted to shake their attitudes up a bit. Sometimes people's actions become so focused, they lose sight of what they are actually doing. StephenBuxton (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. I've added the talkpage header, a controversial tag and archived past discussion as well. If it continues, an RfC is probably in order. Avruchtalk 22:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd vandalism (resolved)

Resolved

which I have found and can't seem to get rid of [33]. 86.147.70.107 (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What part of that article is vandalism? Avruchtalk 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Its been reverted. 86.147.70.107 (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Was showing a bizarre floating message, have reverted & now seems OK. Will check templates to ensure no-one's altered them. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It was Template:C21YearInTopic, one of at least three templates that got vandalised by some ne'erdowell. I put up an RFCU at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wholives‎ based on the vandalism. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

W00t (Resolved)

Resolved

This article was previously deleted for failing WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, WP:NEO and WP:OR and was redirected to List of Internet slang phrases. The latter was itself deleted and linked to wiktionary. I removed large sections of this article for being both original research and synthesis before discovering that it had been deleted, after which I placed the redirect there. Anonymous IPs continue to restore this text without explanation and (in my opinion anyway) in violation of those protocols. I'm not sure if this qualifies as vandalism, so I didn't think AIV was the appropriate place and I also don't know if the page would qualify for protection since it may not meet the criteria for WP:RPP. So I've brought this here to determine if my edits are productive or if the material should be allowed to remain. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think making it a protected redirect would be fine, it seems appropriate in this instance. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 23:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, this word was selected as the 2007 word of the year by Merriam Webster (per this link and others). There might be additional material and notability that might contribute to an actual article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - the AfD was over a year ago, and a lot has changed since then [34] Removing unsourced OR is fine, of course, but I don't think a protected redirect is appropriate; there probably is scope for an article on the term now. As an aside, I see that the article was cited by the BBC. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• With all the OR and synthesis removed, the article becomes a lead and a section about being the word of the year. If the only notability is in the context of being the word of the year, that information should be contained in Merriam-Webster's_Words_of_the_Year and not in a separate article being the word of the year. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, as a result of it being word of the year there's also sourced information available on its etymology and useage (see the BBC article, for instance), so it's possible now to write about those things in a non-OR way as well. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good pasta, it's the word of the year. Word of the year 2008: Pwn. We'll finally know how to pronounce it. Well, if we have some reliable sources, I don't have an issue with recreating it. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Continued ban evasion by Arthur Ellis

contribs) 03:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 – IP initially reported is stale; new reincarnation has been blocked Kla’quot (talk

Community-banned user Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs) now seems to be using 209.217.93.84 (talk · contribs). I think we need a block here (which would be his fourth this week). For more background, please see see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Arthur Ellis. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella#Log of blocks and bans. Thanks, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly bear Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden in mind? There may be a case for letting him edit this one article. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, did you read the Proposed Decision page of the case that you just cited? Arthur Ellis was banned by Arbcom from editing articles relating to Canadian politics and the blogosphere, then had his ban widened for having violated the first ban by editing Rachel Marsden. Then the community hardbanned him for continued ban evasion, and the Arbcom rejected his appeal of the community ban. You might also want to check out the vandalism in the edit histories of the Arbcom pages that you just cited; most of it is from Arthur Ellis IP ranges. If an edit needs to be made to that article surely someone other than a long-term Wikipedia vandal and serial BLP violator can do it. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

At the time of the Rachel Marsden RFAR the ArbCom judged Ellis's edits to be in accordance with BLP. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously questioning whether Athur Ellis is a serial BLP violator? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm simply saying he's unlikely to be violating BLP on this article. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP applies to all people mentioned in an article. He violated it today with this edit:[35] But moreover you are missing the point of banning someone from the project. When someone has given us a stream of vandalism and harassment, we want that person to and stop interacting with us and to forget about Wikipedia. Back to my original point: If an edit needs to be made, anyone can make it and defend it. If you need more eyes on the article, why not ask the thousands of active editors in good standing to watch it instead of inviting back (of all the people in the world) a long-term vandal and serial BLP violator? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Without prejudice to continuing the above discussion, could someone block this IP please? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC) He is at it again... I will leave it be since I do not want to get involved in this. Brusegadi (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ellis is more right than wrong on the content issues, at least with respect to the edits made from this particular IP address. Ellis refuses to play by our rules, which is a problem; unfortunately there are rather more people interested in making sure everyone plays by the rules than there are interested in watchlisting biographies of minor public figures. The article originally spent many words elaborately painting her as a sexual stalker, all from reliable sources but all negative and out of all proportion to her importance. That has been repeatedly trimmed but now we have 400 words on how she has lost her two most recent jobs, again portraying her as disturbed without coming out and actually saying so. (The tactic of saying "Joe Smith vigorously denied rumors of X" is a very clever way of being able to say "Joe Smith is X" without out actually saying it.) Frankly this has gone on too long already. Thatcher 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why the entire article has been deleted though? Marsden is a notable person that seems to have attracted a person that has a strong dislike for her. I would think stubifying the article and semi-protecting it would be a better option than deleting the article of a notable person.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, when most people break the rules around here they do things like revert 5 times in 24 hours. When Arthur Ellis breaks the rules he does things like replace the user page of a female editor with the C-word. (You probably didn't know that his behaviour was this bad; in the spirit of WP:DENY I have avoided bringing it up until now.) This is not the kind of guy we want hanging around here, period. I would really appreciate it if we could show some solidarity in making this person feel unwelcome. I respect your point of view on the content issues. However please make your arguments about content without implying (perhaps unintentionally) that Arthur's ban is based on technicalities. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am Arthur Ellis and I have never replaced anyone's page with the "c-word". It seems any time Canadian editors have a fight or problem the blame is laid to me. I also see a list of Arthur Ellis sockpuppets. Yes, some of them are mine, some are not. I refused to accept a 1 month block imposed when I WON the arbcomm case on this article a year ago. Clayoquot and a handful of other editors got me banned forever. Fine. But I won't let them define the Internet reputations of people I know. 209.217.75.171 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ellis certainly has behaved in an unwelcome and disruptive manner from time to time, and I do not mean to condone that behavior. That should not blind us to the problems of an article that has been stubbed or deleted at least 7 times due to unresolved BLP issues. Thatcher 01:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, do you see anyone in this thread saying that Ellis's conduct should blind us to problems anywhere? What I see is a request to have a banned user blocked, which then turned into a discussion about an article while the block request has been ignored. I am seeing 209.217.75.171 (talk · contribs), who 10 hours ago declared himself on this very noticeboard to be a banned user, still editing. Good grief. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 01:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP is blocked. Thatcher 02:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A Favour Please

Resolved

We have a new User:I LOVE THE JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE, & RINGO. He started out by making changes to Beatles'-related articles like this [36], which I reverted leaving pointers in the edit summary. Having put advice on policy on this talk page, he then blanked it & redirected to The Beatles and carried on his unencyclopedic additions. I left him with a VW3, since I think he should have had the message by then, and a Welcome pointing him the direction of policy. He then did this : [37]. I am reluctant to engage if this is his tone and ask if someone will leave a note about WP:CIVIL and the use of Talk pages for him. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I've honestly never seen such a reaction like that. I think his edits to the mainspace are generally good-faith, just misguided.J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, i left a level one warning about civility towards other users, its just the generic attack1 warn, so if someone else wants to leave him a message feel free. Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to keep an eye on his contributions as he is showing signs of a vandal account. If anyone is doing the same remember to WP:AGF. Tiptoety ^talk 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to monitor User:ILOVETHEOC (contribs)as well. Similar usernames, similar editing style.Kww (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly seems to have the same issues re WP:OWN, not to mention edit summaries (is this a record for the number of cumulative capitalised "fucks" in a summary?). Added to the list. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Note - User has sense not edited, it is a possibility (s)he has left.Tiptoety ^talk 08:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, didnt mean to be so much trouble. I was just a little upset and I figured f bombing my own page wouldnt be such a big deal, (and I did slip on 2 other pages, sorry about that). Anyways, didnt mean to scare anyone away..

About my name: I originally chose I LOVE THE BEATLES, saw it was taken, then tried to choose I LOVE JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE, & RINGO ,but accidently left the "THE" in. I noticed the mistake after I hit send, thought "Hmm, looks kinda clumsy, but screw it, whats done is done." Sorry about freaking you out there, Rodhullandemu....PS, if you really want me to, I'd be delighted to break the f bomb record in an edit summary..LOLI LOVE THE JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE, & RINGO (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Email Spam (resolved)

Resolved

It seems User:rskellner is using article history lists as mailing lists in order to advertise. Here's an email I received:

→From: <email address removed> El_C 21:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"I noticed one of your edits on the Wikipedia article about Hitler, and I thought you would be interested in this YouTube video by a young woman in Israel. The video was inspired by a Wikipedia article about Friedrich Kellner, a German justice inspector who campaigned against Adolf Hitler and the Nazis before they came to power. During the war, Friedrich (who was my grandfather) wrote a secret diary to record Nazi crimes. Here is the YouTube web link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kJLE9zvo44

Next year, the Kellner diary will be on exhibit at the Dwight Eisenhower Presidential Library, and in November it will be at the United Nations to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht. A Canadian documentary about the diary will be shown at the United Nations during the exhibit of the diary.

I apologize if I am intruding in any way with this email, but after reading your Wikipedia post I thought you might want to see this video.

In any case, let me wish you a Happy New Year. Scott Kellner (Dr. Robert Scott Kellner, College Station, Texas - my Wikipedia name is rskellner)"

While I sympathize with the intent, I don't want to see Wikipedia's email contact system and article histories being used this way. Please take whatever precautions you deem necessary to insure that this doesn't continue. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:16, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone doing anything about this? Equazcion •✗/C • 19:43, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

• Are you the only one that received the e-mail that you know of? And what would you like done? Avruchtalk 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you look at the user's talk page it seems I'm not the only one. The email also reads like spam, as in a mass-mailing, and not to mention, I haven't edited the Adolph Hitler article in quite some time. So it seems that this user is utilizing the history of that article as a mailing list. If you see nothing wrong with that, then please don't do anything. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:52, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note at his talk page notifying him of this thread (as should have been done earlier). It looks like some editors appreciated the e-mail, but I can see how unsolicited e-mails through Wikipedia could be negatively received. Lets see what his comments are, and in the mean time assume he sent them in good faith. Avruchtalk 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me about this. I did not mean to break any Wikipedia rules, and I will stop sending such messages. I am not trying to solicit anything from anyone, other than to share information with people who seem to have an interest in it. I could not find a particular noticeboard on which to post such messages, so I thought it would be okay to send it via email. But I do understand your concern, and I apologize, and I will not continue. Thank you again for communicating with me about this in the way you did.Rskellner (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, and for your apology via e-mail. There's no need to feel bad -- I wasn't offended or even bothered by this. My only concern is that Wikipedia's open email system not become a tool for mass-emailing, in general. It seems that nowadays, anywhere on the Internet where you post your email address is a place where people will scrounge to compile mailing list. I don't want to see this happen to Wikipedia, and allowing this practice even on occasion for benign reasons could mean opening the door for the gradual allowance of such a practice on a grander, more annoying scale. Informing people of things outside of the improvement of Wikipedia is not really something that should be handled through Wikipedia. You may want to find an online forum or other site more suited to this purpose -- or if you must, perhaps use the article's talk page instead, as a less-intrusive method of announcement.

I assure you there's been no harm done. Best of luck -- Equazcion •✗/C • 20:58, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make public another user's email address without their explicit consent, Equazcion. I removed it from the opening comment above. El_C 21:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:30, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Requested block of socks (not resolved)

I believe that MetaphorEnt and HollywoodFan1 should be blocked for abusive sockpupperty. Both accounts are part of a COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. A checkuser confirmed the two accounts are sockpuppets. They posted messages on the Noticeboard acting as if they were unrelated, including one were one of the accounts thanked the other one [38]. They both made claims about the number of articles they had been involved in [39] [40]. HollywoodFan1 was asked if they had used multiple accounts, they stated they only had one registered account [41]. MetaphorEnt stated that were a representative of Metaphor Entertainment [42]. HollywoodFan1 repeatedly stated that they were not connected to the company [43] [44] [45] [46] including in a Request for arbitration. Three of the articles in the COI case were nominated for deletion. COI editors were instructed to mention any affiliation with the companies involved when commenting. HollywoodFan1 did not do so at any of them: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fatimah_Adams, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mimi_Fuenzalida, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Milena_Lukich. As most concisely shown in the Request for arbitration, HollywoodFan1 used the guise of being unrelated to Metaphor Entertainment to try to stop the work of the COI case so that the company could continue to inappropriately use the Wikipedia as a promotional tool. BlueAzure (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BlueAzure has been skipping boards, WP:HARASS for weeks now trying to get me to leave Wikipedia. This is the 2nd sockpuppet case he has brought up against me. The first one was settled [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/64.30.201.109]For the record, I worked on those articles because I was called out on the COI [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt] case. Many editors bonded together while User:BlueAzure was/is attacking. I am not MetaphorEnt. If anyone has any suggestions through the WP process to get this editor to stop WP:STALK and WP:BITE me, I could really use the help.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You are MetaphorEnt, the checkuser (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LMA2007) already confirmed this. BlueAzure (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The 31 December update by Voice-al-all on the checkuser case page confirms that MetaphorEnt and HollywoodFan1 are the same editor. Given this result HollywoodFan1's previous statements in the COI case seem highly disingenuous. It's hard to take anything he has said up till now at face value, and it makes it even more remarkable that he filed an Arbcom case expressing indignation about how he was treated on Wikipedia, and casting asparagus on User:BlueAzure. As part of his statement to Arbcom, HollywoodFan1 says For the record, I have no relationship to The management company. I am in a completely different business. In the light of the checkuser finding, I hope he will come clean and enlighten us about the true situation. EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with EdJohnston, with the CU and edits shown, it's hard to believe HollywoodFan1, but let's give him a chance here--please explain yourself. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

With no disrespect to Rlevse who is unknowingly stepping in the middle of this mouse trap, I don't need to explain anything, because I am not MetaphorEnt. You want to spend your lives and year making others unhappy, go ahead it's your life. You know what you did BlueAzure.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Proven sock needs to be blocked. (resolved)

Resolved

 – reporter incorrect

Incorrectly placed above #Someone's putting erect penis photos all over Wikipedia, moved to bottom of page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

See below about the penis. Daniel determined that Blow of Light was Dereks1x. Blow of Light has not been blocked.

Someone said "Resolved - User blocked". Is this a vandal (maybe Dereks1x/BOL sock who is trying to avoid being blocked by falsely saying the issue is resolved.

As far as I can tell, Blow of Light is checkuser proven to be a sock unless I'm misreading below. Republic of One (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misreading it. BoL was incorrectly assuming that the vandal was a sock of someone he'd dealt with in the past, and Daniel was poking holes in his logic. BoL is a legitimate sock of a non-blocked user. Avruchtalk 04:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

but rather checkuser suggests it was Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Daniel 06:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K., which user is "it" and why isn't the user blocked and a "dereks1x" plastered over the user page? Republic of One (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

BoL's user page? Cause Dereks1x isn't BoL. If you look at User:Dereks1x it states that the user is banned. Daniel was saying BoL incorrectly accused someone else, but it turned out to be Derek. Avruchtalk 04:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The "it" is User:Sergyz. And there's no dereks1x on it because suggest doesn't necessarily mean definite. Metros (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ok, ok. Let me just make one clarification before I resume my Wikibreak. Sergyz is not me. In fact, if there are any socks involved with me, I give anyone permission to do a checkuser on me for whatever reason. And that's true, I incorrectly accused someone else because I have a habit of incorrectly accusing someone else. —BoL 05:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, wait, I do have a sock. It's an account that I have since discontinued using because of my bad track record. —BoL 05:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Request indef ban of vandal account User:LaruaWA11

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked for disruption. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

LaruaWA11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I made a request at AIV but this turned into a discussion which I was told to bring here. This user has been blocked 2 times so far and is still vandalizing. Conversations with the user on his/her talk page about the issue don't seem to be helping. User is belligerent when warned and shows no signs of letting up. I'm requesting an indef block because this doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

I also suspect this to be a sock of a banned user, because they seem like they're toying with us. I suggested an "indef" directly on his/her talk page, without describing what that word meant, and he/she immediately reverted that edit, see here. S/he couldn't have know what that meant simply from my statement, so it seems they have extensive previous experience with Wikipedia, or at least with getting banned. I think this user plans to mix in good-faith edits as much as is needed to keep the account alive. I invite any opinions.

Here are some diffs: [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] Thanks for looking into this. -- Equazcion •✗/C • 05:03, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This user has been disruptive, which is just as bad as vandalism. Support an indefinite ban. bibliomaniac15 05:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The user is having difficulties. Is there a kind soul who could offer to help them? The above diffs seem to be prior to a block that already expired so they cannot be acted upon. Jehochman ^Talk 05:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) This edit came after the last block. I don't believe the user is having trouble. This strikes me as deliberate disruption. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:14, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Just to note on this situation, although I am kind of involved in this: The user in question, as evident from the above diffs, today, has abused more CSD tags, as well as made some incivil remarks. Attempting to talk to the user about this didn't really solve anything and it appears that the previous block(s) didn't really help the user to understand how his/her edits were disruptive. I wouldn't support a community ban at this point but a long term block may be a better alternative, given that the previous 2 blocks were of very short duration. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And the user continues, so a block is needed asap. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So much response on this one, but none on my report above? I'm sad :( Avruchtalk 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block issued. El_C 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Any un-involved admins? Requesting unblock... - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed / denied it. I'm not seeing a new user in distress... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of subsequent edits showing no change in the pattern, I support the indefinite block. Jehochman ^Talk 05:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism with suspected sockpuppetry (2nd posting)

I previously filed a report about this same user. I filed the report on December 26. The report:

== Long-term vandalism with suspected sockpuppetry ==

Not sure if this is the correct place to post this. I believe user Frank mad (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and I.P. 66.176.219.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are the same person. Both users have contributed to the same articles, vandalizing them repeatedly by removing sourced information and pushing POV. This can be seen in their contributions page. The I.P. has just been blocked for 3 months but the user is now using their user account (Frank mad) to continue vandalizing. Edits pushing POV on White Latin American by deleting the exactly same information by Frank mad [63] and the I.P. [64] [65] are identical. This user will not communicate with other users who have tried to talk to them, including myself. This makes it hard to try to come to a mutual understanding, but in this case erasing info. is considered vandalism. The user and I.P. have been repeatedly warned and told to not remove the info; they still do so, and it is reverted, however, they come back hours later to do it again. I don't know what action should or can take place but this reverting every day has to come to an end. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  22:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Since then nothing has changed. The user continues to vandalize the White Latin American article by deleting sourced information and pushing POV. The user still has not made any effort whatsoever to communicate and i warned him.

After the report i filed on December 26 the user has:

• (Dec. 28) Re-added unnecessary info to an article which violates WP:MOS. I contacted him a long time ago but user does not communicate. Also, the info he added was already present.
• (Dec. 31) Deleted sourced info, the same info he has been deleting for over a month now: [66][67][68]
• (Jan. 1) And again, deleted the same sourced info as on Dec. 31st and countless other times: [69][70][71]

Something seriously has to be done. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wiki Doctorates

Resolved

 – Page deleted, Tiptoety ^talk 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Could some close this per WP:SNOW? (Sorry to bring this here). Tiptoety ^talk 05:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, someone has closed it as delete. Thanks anyways. Tiptoety ^talk 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Debbiesvoucher (needs attention)

The comments that this user made in response to my note regarding the rude and incivil edit summary left on the Front Page Challenge page (diff) & admonition regarding a pattern of unsourced, speculative and original research additions was beyond acceptable, and is not new behavior from this user & his/her sock puppet. This is a sock puppet identity of another user who has said similar things in the past (diff) and was blocked for it, nearly identical to what was said tonight. (diff) My confirmation was the comment regarding the use of interlibrary loan, which was brought up in a dispute resolution process for the article Karyn Kupcinet. I can't file a sock puppet report on this until after the holiday week, as one or the other identity has indicated elsewhere that he or she is not at the regular place he/she posts during the holiday. This is a pattern of behavior that waxes and wanes from this user. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Those aren't diffs, by the way. To get the diff links, copy the "last" URL. JuJube (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

HELLO?? As far as I can tell, this is the only entry on this page that hasn't been addressed by an administrator regarding the complaint. The only response I've gotten was to tell me how to fix the diffs I provided. This is the 3rd noticeboard I've posted on recently that has gotten no response from those that run it. Will someone address this matter, please? Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protection due to expire (FYI)

Resolved

 – This is an FYI

The page protection for Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (the venue for an edit war that led to the current arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC) is due to expire at 09:01, 2 January 2008, which is just over 4 hours from now. Some discussion is going on on the talk page, but I'm raising this issue now so people can consider whether to extend the page protection, or allow careful editing to resume, or to leave things as they are and re-protect if needed. You would think people wouldn't be so stupid as to resume edit warring over this, but I'm not so sure. Cross-posting to the following places: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and User talk:Alison (the current protecting admin). Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined against an extension. If people desire to continue behaving badly and dig their own graves, that's their prerogative. east.718 at 05:32, January 2, 2008

Not everyone follows ArbCom cases and not everyone checks page histories and talk pages. Someone genuinely uninvolved might stumble across this page (though unlikely as it is a bit obscure). You have a point though. Those already involved have no excuse and should know better than to respond to any edits by reverting and so forth. Anyone uninvolved who edits before looking can be gently pointed to the talk page if the edit is controversial. The protection has now expired. I'll removed the protection tag. Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban review requested on topic not banned by arbcom ruling

Background: Barbara Schwarz had undergone four previous (1 - 2 - 3 - 4) deletion discussions were overwhelmingly in favor of keeping, while acknowledging WP:BLP concerns with some of the information in when it was speedily deleted by an admin. A deltion review determined that when WP:BLP questionable material was removed, the remainder would not be enough to justify an article.

Here is where I think the admin imposing the topic ban has begun to misunderstand my actions. She was/is mentioned in two other articles, Neutral reportage, Barbara Schwarz v. The Salt Lake Tribune and Freedom of Information Act (United States)#Barbara Schwarz. Each has its own sources and were discussed in detail on her article, this meant that any expansion of what was said about her in either would've been redundant. Now that her article is gone, it isn't redundant to expand those other two articles a bit. Essentially because I expanded a simple mentioning of her case on Neutral reportage with reliable sources, and an editor with an axe to grind put it in the most negative way possible to make it look as though I'm simply adding unsourced information about her wherever I want without as a disruption and ignoring the concerns of others. (Despite the fact that I've been engaging in discussion on the relevant talk pages Talk:Neutral reportage/Talk:Freedom of Information Act (United States).)

I could understand the ban if I was adding information about her to topics which used to be covered by her article, but for which no/little sourcing exists such as her relationship with Scientology or her forced deprogramming. No really good sources discuss either aspect, so clearly adding such info would be disruptive. I'm not doing that though, here are the two sources which I cited:Utah appeals court backs reporting privelage First Amendment Center and the article she sued about Tribune. Anynobody 07:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(On another more technical issue, the banning admin used the logic that since Barbara Schwarz has to do with Scientology a topic ban from an arbcom case about Scientology articles applies even though neither article she is mentioned in is part of the Scientology series. The logic seems to be treating the subject as if her article still existed (Indeed her article was part of the Scientology series, but mention of her in an article about FOIA is not). It'd be as if I were topic banned from say, Catholicism to the point that any mention of it qualified as a violation of the ban; I wouldn't be able to edit topics where it might come up like pedophilia, The Troubles, heck even editing the Battle of Gravelines it could come up that Spain was trying to impose Papal influence over England. Really though, the primary thrust of my request is based on the fact that editors shouldn't be banned for doing things they have not, not the error in applying a Scientology ban to articles dealing with FOIA and neutral reportage though it should also be considered.) Anynobody 07:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Before Jehochman removes this again, I'm not sure this classifies as forum shopping. Since WP:AE, where this issue arose, is only attended to by a few (lately 2 or 3) admins, there has to be someplace to request a broad review. Thatcher 08:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe Anynobody "gets it" with respect to BLPs. I have extensively discussed the issue at WP:AE and Talk:Neutral reportage. All Scientology articles are on probation; Barbara Schwarz is a former Scientologist whose litigious activities are intimately related to her status as a Scientologist. Therefore, the probation applies to Barbara Schwarz and under that probation I have banned Anynobody from making edits related to Barbara Schwarz (except for talk pages) for 30 days. Thatcher 08:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call, based on what I've seen of Anynobody's edits to this subject. Not evil, but just does not quite "get it", a good summary. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter Miladz

Resolved

I've somehow cocked up the above somehow. Aatomic1 (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. You need to add it to the main AFD page for today ({{subst:afd3 | pg=Inter Miladz}}) Pedro :  Chat  11:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done - Thank you Pedro. Aatomic1 (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Urgent disgusting vandalism (resolved)

Resolved

I went to User:Judgesurreal777‎ and some anonymous IP put something on it that may be a virus or something, but my browser (Internet Explorer) changed and had an obscene image on it. Please remove this or revert it, but again, I urge whoever to be cautious as when I went to that page it temporarily messed up my browser. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Didn't see what it was though. I went straight into the history of the user page, reverted, then looked at my diff to see the changes. —Kurykh 07:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's goatse. —Kurykh 07:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A different anonymous IP has reverted back to the obscene, browser changing image. When I clicked on the user page, the regular Wikipedia page shifted into something with swear words and a semi-blurred nude image that took over the whole browser. Anyway, another IP is at. It may be worth protecting his page. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Done the minute before you posted. —Kurykh 07:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the fast response. By the way, what is "goatse" or do I not want to know? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. Happy New Year!

goatse.cx - it was a famous shock site / trolling image - Alison ^❤ 07:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I should have figured we might have an article on it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks for reporting this latest rash of vandalism. Does anyone know of a way to remove said images from my userpage history? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Happy to help! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• I've deleted it from your history; this isn't often done but since it was requested and this was particularly bad vandalism I saw no reason not to. —Random832 14:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tracer9999

Resolved

User has engaged in an edit war on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Consensus on the article's talk page was to include the list of appearances, but he insists on reverting to remove the list.[72] [73] [74] When it was pointed out that these edits went against consensus, user threatened to continue the edit war.[75] When this was pointed out, he started leaving rude and uncivil comments on my talk page that mocked Wiki policies and were clearly designed to provoke a negative response.[76] [77] [78] [79] Buspar (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, user has been warned about edit warring twice by two users who also edit the article: [80] [81] Buspar (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Tracer9999 for revert warring, personal attacks and harassment. Dreadstar † 05:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Buspar (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not contesting this block, but please note also that while he/she technically did not violate policy like User:Tracer9999, User:Buspar was also warned for revert warring and has been claiming a "consensus" that does not exist to insert the material in question into the article (though to be fair, he/she may not have been aware of that). --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Newsroom. The threat by Tracer9999 to continue revert warring was key in the decision to block. I noted the warning to Buspar as well as Bupar's acknowledgement of it, and felt it was sufficient for now. Dreadstar † 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While this has been closed, as a follow up to Newsroom, Buspar did try to dodge a 3RR violation by recruiting a meatpuppet [82]. Burzmali (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ALA22222222 (talk · contribs) (Resolved)

Resolved

The user on his talk page is requesting another administrator review his block (He posted an unblock request, but I declined it). Given his first edit was a straight gutshot to here, could someone uninvolved look into this? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but it seems the only edits he's made were the one here, and the one removing the warning from his talk page. Maybe he deserves a second chance. However, would the long string of 2s be a problem with the username policy? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith here and unblock. It's possible that the user registered an account to make a comment here after editing anon for a while. I'll keep a close eye on him. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I will just say that I am becoming increasingly disgusted at the assumption that new users who turn up here are ban-fodder. That's it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He may be a sock and he may not be one, but either way, let's not bite this possibly legitemate newcomer. Let's assume good faith and unblock. If there is any more disruption from this user, we can restore the block at any time. Maser ^(Talk!) 00:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He is already unblocked; and although I accept full responsibility for denying the original unblock request, I did not block him - all I did was warn him about blanking this page before the block by Pedro. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

His first (and so far only) comment after being unblocked was to ask not to "spy" on him. [83] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I took it as a bit of humour. We'll see with time. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the "banfodder" comment above, while I don't agree with instablocking anyone who blanks ANI, I can definately see where it's coming from. As Jeske said in his unblock-denial, it's quite unusual for a true newbie to know where ANI is. ALA22222222 also asserts very nonchalantly on his talk page that he's allowed to remove warnings once he's read them. Now, I have met the odd newbie who bothered to read the policies, and he could always have been a lurker (or he could be bullshitting and happened to be right), so of course let's assume good faith; however, I think this one is certainly worth "spying" on. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Iam starting to wonder why I even signed up with wikipedia because somehow I feel like Iam being made fun of or harassed on here so don't expect me to contribute to this site much.--ALA22222222 (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not being made fun of here, and nobody here is going to "spy" on you unless they want a scolding. I'll be the first to help you out - just direct any questions to my talk page, chummer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way J-ſtan, my username is perfectly fine--ALA22222222 (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute, to edit some articles that interest you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl

This user is engaging in insulting and flamebaiting on Talk:Muhammad. I would recommend that the same sort of policy be used towards him as towards obvious anti-semites (ie, automatic banning as User:Alberuni or, at the very least, some sort of sanction for such severe lack of netiquette. 68.19.85.8 (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked TharkunColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for two weeks, and have left a full explanation of why on his talk page. He has been blocked for trolling Talk:Muhammad before. Neıl ☎ 12:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact is, it was more then just TharkunColl (talk · contribs) that was engaged in personal attacks. Aliibn (talk · contribs) has also been engaged in personal attacks and race baiting on other editors whom he disagrees with. --Farix (Talk) 14:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs? TharkunCoil's attacks were obvious, but I can't see any blatant ones from Aliibn. I've reviewed Aliibn's contributions, and I see some frustration and some sarcasm, but only in response to Tharkun's baiting. I note Tharkun has appealed the block as two weeks is "harsh", while not apologising at all for his comments. As I say on his talk page, it was two weeks because he has been blocked on two separate occasions (24 hours, 100 hours) for trolling on Talk:Muhammad alone. Neıl ☎ 15:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, calling Mohammed a pedophile? Good block Neil, it was completely racist and if it happens on his return, I'd suggest a much longer block. I can't find anything too bad with Alberuni, not the friendliest exchange, but nothing block worthy and no where near the same level as TharkinColls remarks. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl has been at this for about a year now. Good block. 1 != 2 16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A request to Ban an abusive Sockpuppet User:Gohdeilocks

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

---

User:Gohdeilocks is a Stalker nd has been Stalking me from outside of WikiPedia for 9 months. I believe I am not the first Wikipedian editor that this user has attacked and I can prove it if this is to go to arbitration commettie, which I do not see the need for because this user is a Sockpuppet with no editor history.

You can see the conversation on his talk page User_talk:Gohdeilocks and his Social engineering of the dialouge with reverts and comment title name changes. As well as inctigation of other users against me. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the convention here, but think the posts on my Talk page shows the accurate events of the last 36(?) hours. I don't feel inclined to add anything more except to repeat that every one of Igor Berger's accusations is demonstrably false. I have asked him repeatedly to leave me alone, but he keeps returning to add banners falsely accusing me of every WP offense the can think of. I am somewhat at a loss as to how to make him go away, although not for want of trying. Frankly, I'm pretty sick of it. I'll add more here if an Admin feels appropriate, but I think the evidence is pretty plain and straightforward. Gohdeilocks (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not go to User:Gohdeilocks page anymore, I followed the policy of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam as a WkiPedia Spam patrolman. The user attacked me violating Wikipedia:NPA with his instigation of User_talk:ST47 while I was in arbitration with him. I leave this in your capable hands and please investigate. I see no more need to post any notices on User_talk:Gohdeilocks. Thank you, Igor BergeItalic textr (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"I will not go to User:Gohdeilocks page anymore" Thank you: it is appreciated. Nevertheless, an Admin's eye and advice would, I feel, be productive. Gohdeilocks (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was nice while it lasted Gohdeilocks (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know who Gohdeilocks is supposed to be a sockpuppet of.--Atlan (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There was already a discussion at User talk:Deskana#Request for CheckUser of user User:Gohdeilocks. You guys should have a look.--Phoenix-wiki 16:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So there is no sockmaster and this is just an empty accusation, nor does there seem to be any merit to Igor's spamming allegations.--Atlan (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to take a look at a discussion we are having at StopBaware.org I am being Stalked Igor Berger (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not care about off-wiki discussions. What is being said there that has bearing on Gohdeilocks' on-wiki behavior?--Atlan (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, it establishes a patern of consern for further investigaion of this matter at hand. Why would a new editor with no previes history of editing enter a dispute between an admin and a user? The only way they would know there is such a dispute in the first place is to lay in wait and monitor my contribution history. I did not come to his page to initiate contact but he came to my talk page, and he also went to the admin page. You do not consider this social engineering Malware? Igor Berger (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know they have no editing history? He could have been an ip. Look at Redrocketboy (talk · contribs) — an ip for ages. And there's 68.39.174.238 (talk · contribs) and 24.147.86.187 (talk · contribs) — they'd know there way around if they created accounts.--Phoenix-wiki 17:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like grounds for Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser to detemine if the user is a Sockpuppet and has Conflict of interest with me as an editor on WikiPedia. But I will withdraw my request for the ban if the user stops to attempt any social engineering and respects my space as an editor. WikiPidea is full of many articles so this user has many places to edit without having to come in contact with me. So I will avoid, intentionally, editing on the back of him and he will do the same. Neither he or I will go around to other user talk pages bad mouthing each other or making references to behavior I or him do outside WikiPedia. So pretty much stay out of each other way! Igor Berger (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The picture I feel Igor Berger is attempting to paint of me is of an editor who has gone out of his way to disrupt, harass and bully another editor, making unfounded allegations and attacks, and ignoring pleas to stop. As the correspondence on my talk page shows, the truth is quite the reverse. I add this in interests of fairness, because I cannot help but feel an element of revisionism and deliberate misrepresentation is going on, as it has gone on throughout this dispute. And I repeat, to the very best of my knowledge I have had absolutely no contact with this user before 36 hours ago, here or elsewhere. Gohdeilocks (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like the User:Gohdeilocks agree to my proposal here at this noticeboard same as I have. And please have an administrator place reference to this agrremenet on both of our user talk pages so everyone will be alert of the agreement resolution. Thank you.

I also like to state to User:Gohdeilocks that fighting between each other is not in the best interest of WikiPedia community as a whole and we need to learn to agree to disagree for the best of the community. So at the end it is not who is right and who is wrong but how we can solve this problem in an amiable fashion. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"I would like the User:Gohdeilocks agree to my proposal here" Given your proposal here is to ban me from Wikipedia, it seems pretty unlikely I would agree, doesn't it ? Gohdeilocks (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(←) I think he's referring to "So I will avoid, intentionally, editing on the back of him and he will do the same. Neither he or I will go around to other user talk pages bad mouthing each other or making references to behavior I or him do outside WikiPedia. So pretty much stay out of each other way!" Agree to avoid each other and move on. Lara❤Love 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly made exactly the same suggestion to him as early as 24 hours ago, as my talk page shows:

here("I am happy for you to stop this vandalism with no conversation or further contact between us")

here (" I have no desire for our paths to cross again, ever. Would that be a good way to take this forward ? Please don't take undue offense. I just want to resolve this.")

here, ("My offer for us to never have any contact with each other every again still stands. Please take it up. Please.")

here ("Please don't [contact me again] I've had as much 'clarity' as I need today, thank you. As far as I'm concerned, this conversation ended three comments ago")

here ("Please go away")

here ("Please take this to an admin, and discuss it with them, not me. I am simply not interested,")

and

here("Please do not post here again...Instead, please speak to an admin")

Igor Berger did not take the opportunity to accept any of these offers (all of which occurred well before this process began or was even hinted at), instead either deleting it and marking it as vandalism, ignoring it, or first saying that he would accept, then continuing to vandalize my user page with baseless warning banners and repeats of the personal attacks, warning me that this was the last warning for disruptive edits and "final warnings" (same link), before proceeding to raise this action here.

The offer was there before, and he chose not to accept it, but instead to escalate his attacks against me. I would like to assume good faith with Igor Berger when he says that this time he truly intends to stop his personal attacks on me. However, it would, I feel, be a triumph of hope over recent experience. Nevertheless, he clearly doesn't need my permission if he wants to drop this action or to stop harassing me in the future.. Gohdeilocks (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case it seems that both [IE, GOHDEILOCKS AND LARALOVE - ADDED FOR CLARITY] our assumptions that Igor Berger wished to withdraw this action were misguided. I'll step out of this now, and let the admins decide. Gohdeilocks (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Gohdeilocks to show this community and to anyone outside the community that you are not involved in social engineering of your talk page, would you agree to place a link to this Administartion notice board incident case on your user talk page? I have placed a link to this already, and will place a diff link (or better oldid) to the final resolution? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already a link (which you placed there, and I moved into chronological order), I absolutely have no idea what you mean by "social engineering" or the "malware" reference you made earlier, no particular desire to learn, and no great yearning to communicate with you ever again. Please deal with the admins in this case from now on; I will comment here if they request it. Gohdeilocks (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Our assumptions is refering to whom? I ask you to finish this and you replied what? So I am reference to your not hearing what I said! Where do you want to take this, because I am begining to see a destructive behavior on your part. Igor Berger (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The user is wasting the time of the administration board members, and in my opinion his talk page was socially engineered to be referenced to from outside the WikiPedia community to further social engineer negative bias towards User:Igorberger and maybe even towards WikiPedia community as a whole, I recommend to delete the user page, and to delete any comments that he has made on other editor`s talk pages! This is a very difficult thing for all of us to experiences and we need to guard and protect each other from abusive social engineering practices to uphold our authority and trust as reference to knowledge. I rest my case. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reboot

Outside opinion: it appears you have both done nothing this year (Wikipedia contribution-wise, I mean) except argue about this. Rather than talking about linking discussions on talk pages, discussing who thought of what first, including "social engineering" in the agreement, etc, I suggest you both just agree, with no further tweaking of the wording, to very simply:

1. Stop posting in this thread
2. Avoid posting on each other's talk page
3. Avoid editing pages the other has already edited
4. Avoid mentioning the existence of the other user
5. Agree to disagree about who is at fault
6. Have a cup of tea.

Based on your previous comments in this thread, it seems like something you should both be willing to do. In my perfect world, you would both type "I agree." under this, add nothing else, and then I (or someone) would archive this thread, and then everyone involved could move on. Or, going further, in my nirvana, if one of you typed more than "I agree", the other would ignore it and not respond. Nothing is being achieved here. --barneca (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree Gohdeilocks (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree Igor Berger (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Czar world copyrighted image upload

Resolved

 – Blocked indef Shell ^babelfish 17:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fresh off a block for image upload problems, User:Czar world uploaded a huge stream of apparent copyright violations today, in each case claiming to be the owner of the copyright for such diverse things as screen-shots from Britney Spears videos and publicity shots of Thai actresses.Kww (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Static IP vandalism

Resolved

 – IP has not edited since 1st January and articles are placid

• 83.100.160.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 28 edits mostly since November, 90% of which ignore WP guidelines, being controversial POV & original research, never with any sources, vandalism, defamation. Final warnings given. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Four of which are dated today, and not linked to specific edits, despite IP not having edited since yesterday. Having said that, most of the edits seems to be nonsensical, and previous warnings have been given. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I placed the 4 warning on today to cover the aspects of their behaviour that had not been covered before. I felt that this would also help any admin taking a cursory look before considering a ban. To link to all instances of their previous edits would have placed too much of a burdon on a good editor (me). I sometime think that editors with mal-intent are running rings around us. :-( -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Restoring a talk page (resolved, monitor)

Resolved

 – page restored and protected, monitor sockmaster

Help required to restore this page [84] to User talk:Will Beback, I cant do it, some nasty vandal and my link is to Will's history talk. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, I also move-protected Will's page. SirFozzie (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also blocked the sock that did the move.. they'll probably be more later, the sockmaster seems to be really upset that he got caught. SirFozzie (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mikep2008a

Resolved

 – User blocked, page blanked

Hello,

I find the first sentence of his userpage not really appropriate with our scope (building an encyclopedia). Would you agree with that ? I put a message on his talk page but I think it would require some people to track that. Thanks. Poppy (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Also, the use of non-free content on userpages is not allowed. I've left a message to that effect. -JodyB _talk 14:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur, too - and I've removed the first sentence and fair use stuff. diff Happy New Year, Jack Merridew 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User is repeatedly re-adding the non-free content to his user page, despite the warnings: here and here. I've once again removed the content ,which has now been done a total of 1, 2, 3, 4 times by different editors. I've also left a 3RR warning for this user. I see a block in the near future if he continues. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking back further, User:ImageBacklogBot (User:ST47) also removed the non-free content. --Jack Merridew 15:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 1 hour by User:JodyB. Probably keep an eye after the block expires. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that whole User page one big copyvio, since it's a cut and paste from the Kylie Minogue article? Corvus cornix_talk 18:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the userpage was a copyright violation. I've blanked it, and issued a warning. JodyB already has spoken to the user (who is currently blocked) and I assume Jody is monitoring for further violations. Avruchtalk 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG misuse of page protection

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

---

JzG consecutive edits to Condensed matter nuclear science:

• [85]
• [86]

represent a violation of the page protection policy on two counts:

• Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in.
• During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.

I have notified him on his user talk page and asked him to remedy this: [87]. Since then, he has responded to others on his talk page: [88], but has not responded to my notice, nor taken any action with regard to it. Kevin Baas^talk 19:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with his two edits to that page, he's fixing a mistake and formating a source. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, JzG's reasoning seems accurate. I see no abuse here. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the nature of the edits, I'd like to note that User:JzG did not fully protect the page; User:Doc glasgow did.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC) (eep. Didn't notice the redirect!)

Doesn't seem to be a problem here. Avruchtalk 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to check, has anyone actually read the diffs, or are we all going off FeloniousMonk's statement? -Amarkov moo! 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked - I don't see a problem with restoring a redirect on a POV fork and protecting it. The below information is transferred from a different thread above (As yet unresponded to) and is a little more complicated (and deals with a different page). Avruchtalk 19:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a POV judgement and is immaterial to the policies in question. Kevin Baas^talk 20:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. I was a bit worried when I started reading about how redirection is the same thing as "fixing a mistake and formatting a source". -Amarkov moo! 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys might be looking at the cold fusion article history. JzG made the condensed matter nuclear science page a redirect to cold fusion. So you've got to backwards from the redirect: [89].

There was a series of reverts back and forth between an article with content: [90] and a redirect: [91], involving multiple people.

JzG is heavily involved in multiple disputes about condensed matter nuclear science on the cold fusion talk page. Page protection policy states that:

• "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people."

Before protecting the page, JzG reverted it back to the version that he prefers. Page protection policy states that:

• "Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in."

Kevin Baas^talk 19:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In both cases, JzG violated wikipedia page protection policy in letter and principle. Kevin Baas^talk 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In my case, you are quite right. I didn't notice that I had been redirected, and we had just been discussing the matter of the Cold fusion article at the help desk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

JzG doesn't like "POV forks" and likes to remove them [92]. violet/riga (t) 20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling something a POV fork is itself a POV. The fact is that it's status as such is clearly disputed by multiple users (as one can see just by looking at the edit history). And JzG is involved in this dispute, thus it is against policy for him to use his admin power to protect the page. Wikipedia policy is clear and explicit on this issue. Kevin Baas^talk 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, Condensed matter nuclear science was redirected to Cold fusion because it was a POV fork. FeloniousMonk (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling something a POV fork is itself a POV. The fact is that it's status as such is clearly disputed by multiple users (as one can see just by looking at the edit history). And JzG is involved in this dispute, thus it is against policy for him to use his admin power to protect the page. Wikipedia policy is clear and explicit on this issue. Kevin Baas^talk 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

From talk:cold fusion: a pro-cold fusion reference [93] says "... renamed their subject more appropriately, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science". Add to this Ed Poor's history of creating POV forks, and honestly I can't see how nipping this in the bud was wrong for the encyclopaedia. A redirect is obviously the right outcome, per the source cited, and if he'd created one instead of trying to fork the content then we would be tanking him for helping out. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Point 1: Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is protected due to the effects of a protracted attempt to insert fringe science.

Point 2: At least three POV-forks have been used to try to get around WP:NPOV and page protection; 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was just deleted, this was another, Cold fusion research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a third.

Point 3: Kevin Baas brought this up on my talk page and then came here only an hour later; sorry, Kevin, I'll stop visiting my father in hospital so I can respond to your demands in a timescale you find acceptable.

Point 4: I did not identify the POV forks, that was user:ScienceApologist this time, user:Michaelbusch in the other case.

Final point: Am I sick to death of special pleading, cherry-picking and misrepresentation of sources, querulousness, farcical "straw polls" and other attempts to boost fringe "cold fusion" research? You bet. Anyone else want the baton? Guy (Help!) 20:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(1)Firstly, this is not about the cold fusion article, it is about the CMNS article. Secondly it doesn't matter what you claim the reason for cold fusion being protected is, or what the what you claim the reason for the CMNS being protected is.

(2)Again, doesn't matter what happened nor how you characterize it. Kevin Baas^talk 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(3)According to WP's user contribution logs, I posted the message on your talk page at 2008-01-01T12:33:56, and posted the notice on the noticeboard at 2008-01-01T13:30:48. In the meantime, you found the time to make these two edits: [94] [95], while, purportedly, "visiting your father in the hospital". Apparently, making these edits were not only more important than to you than responding to a notice about policy abuse that was left on your talk page, but also more important to you than visiting your father in the hospital. So either you got your priorities really screwed up, or you're lying out your a$$. Kevin Baas^talk 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(4)It doesn't matter what you call the articles, nor what anybody else calls them, nor who does the calling. Kevin Baas^talk 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, I have refactored your comments so they leave mine with clear attribution. In response:

(1) CMNS was a POV fork created by someone on an ArbCom sanction for creating POV forks. I was not the one who identified it as such, the evidence is, however, presented here and there and seems compelling to me. The two are, after all, synonymous in the (admittedly very limited) literature.

(2) Yes, the creation of other POV-forks is relevant. This topic has been the subject of lengthy and determined attempts to promote fringe science as mainstream. That is still ongoing, I believe.

(3) My father is in the high dependency unit of Hemel Hempstead District Hospital, we had a phone call at 11pm on Sunday calling my mother (who is nearly 70) to his bedside because he took a dramatic turn for the worse, I have visited him today in hospital, but as you point out that was not the period in question, the period in question was, if I track back, while I was packing the car and the kids to drive home. Fact remains, you gave me less than no time to respond on my talk, not that it matters as I'm sure you'd have brought it here anyway. Lying out of my ass? Thank you so very much, I love you too.

(4) Yes it does, nyer.

So, who else wants this mess, or should we just let the POV-pushers run riot again and then maybe revert to the 2004 FA version after another year, as has happened twice already? Guy (Help!) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) I really don't know the history of the article. I do know that the article was not deleted and no RfD was filled. If it really is a POV-fork, an RfD request should be filed. I really don't see what POV it pushes except the one that there is a field called "CMNS" in which some research has been and is being done, which is true. But that's besides the point. I do vaguely recall - though i may be mistaken, that a lot of the content in it used to be in the cold fusion article, but then i think a spinoff article was made per WP article split policy because the cold fusion article was kinda long, and people thought it should deal more specifically with the pons-fleishman setup, because that's what most people think of when they refer to "cold fusion", and the non-F/P stuff, though related, wasn't close enough to that. I believe the article had "good article" or even "featured article" status when it had a lot of that content in it, so maybe merging it back might be a way to go. In any case, an RfD would be much more effective at reaching a resolution than trying to strong-arm the article forever.

(2) As far as I know, the other articles were not reverted and then protected consecutively by the same editor, and certainly not recently.

(3) I'm sorry.

(4) If it matters, than show me the policy that says so. Kevin Baas^talk 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't that you thought te article was a POV fork. The issue is that you treated it as such, and then immediately protected the article to keep people from changing it back. If you don't see why this is a problem, then you need to take a break from dealing with POV forks. -Amarkov moo! 21:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It's not, after all, like I'm dealing with a bunch of POV-pushers who have been trygin for years to skew the article on cold fusion to represent a fringe view of a subject which is essentially discarded by the mainstream. Oh, wait, that's exactly what I'm dealing with! Well hell. So, what process do you want me to go through to get rid of these blatant POV forks, and how quickly can we get it done with so these people stop degrading the encyclopaedia with blatant attempts to pretend to a controversy that barely exists, a field of science that is all but abandoned, a review they interpret as a green light for more research but actually says nothing has changed in fifteen years, and a mess of free energy suppression nonsense reverted along the way? Only this is getting just a bit old, so a really good and permanent solution to this fringe nonsense would be really appreciated, and I do sincerely mean that. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, I think you're also now dealing with me, and I am exactly not someone who has been trying for years to skew the article on cold fusion. BTW I disagreed with the POV-fork and would not have been against a redirect or merger. Very sorry to see this mess now. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure a solution that permanently eliminates the controversy would be possible. It probably isn't. But even if you think there is such a solution, that doesn't justify anything you do towards the goal of stoopping the ocntroversy. -Amarkov moo! 21:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to do for the best here. If we restore the text I changed, it is wrong, misleading and confusing for the reader (which is why I changed it, because I checked the conclusion and found it didn't say that, but something subtly different and a bit wider in scope); this seems to me to be a silly piece of process wonkery, restoring something that is actually wrong just because some editors prefer it to be wrong. We could leave it, but then some people will burst a blood vessel because, for some reason I absolutely cannot fathom, it makes a Really Big Huge Enormous Difference to them quoting a selective para from a subsection of the report rather than quoting the conclusion - and incidentally if anyone could explain why, I'd be really grateful. Probably the best thing is if someone goes and just removes the summary text as redundant and more trouble than it's worth. But I am going to do my level best not to care which is done. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a new year, so we're starting it off right, I see. Guy was right, just like the last doze ntimes we've gone over this. A small group of hardcore editors, living in denial about the actual report, state of the science, and so on, continue to agitate recklessless and relentlessly on the page. Guy, they like the other because that subsection lets them walk through some wiggle room the actual conclusion eliminates, in their reading of it. People whose dreams are crushed by reality will seize upon any hope availed to them, and that's happening here. Because Wikipedia is percieved by some as a 'battleground of ideas', they seek to exploit fringe theories here, in the hopes of getting attention, either for their cause or themselves. I support any amount of rollbacks to the FA quality article, and I find it disheartening that time after time, a good article is ruined by people with an agenda. ThuranX (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to protected page Cold fusion

The Evil Spartan [96] and I [97] [98] both asked JzG to self-revert his edit to protected page Cold fusion. His response was that it was a minor edit that no one could object to. [99] [100] [101]

However, it was in part due to JzG reverting other contributors' edits that led Doc Glasgow to protect the page. It seems unfair for one party to an edit conflict, being allowed to continue making edits, however "minor".

Action requested: Please suggest to JzG that he self-revert, or simply roll back his edits. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, he deleted a quote that I made, as explained here. I do consider his edit an abuse of admin power. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

These are the same edits as being discused above, Ed, Condensed matter nuclear science was redirected to Cold fusion because it was one of your POV fork attempts. I still fail to see any issue with JzG's 2 edits, but I do with yours and you creating another POV fork since you are on probation for creating POV forks, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. FeloniousMonk (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick glance at the CMNS page history will show that I neither created it nor made any edits to it. What on earth are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You may not have created the page, but much of the content you did. Others have called it a POV fork and spoke to you about that directly [102][103][104][105] and I'm pointing out that you are on RFAR probation for POV forks. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, you are wrong on multiple counts:

1. These are not the same edits as being discussed. This is clear from the fact that the edits are on entirely different pages. One discussion is about JzG protecting an article that he is involved in a dispute on (the CMNS article), and furthermore not protecting it on whatever version it happens to be on at the time. The other discussion is about JzG making controversial changes to a protected article (the cold fusion article).
2. You are in asserting the reason that cmns was redirected.
3. You are wrong for even discussing what the reason was, as it is completely irrelevant, AND it's the wrong article.
4. You are wrong to call it a POV fork, per Wikipedia:POV_fork.
5. You are wrong to assume bad faith on the part of Ed (and everybody else involved in this discussion), per wikipedia good faith policy.
6. You are wrong in stating what the incident being discussed is, both in this section and the one above. Both incidents are about wikipedia page protection policy, which is clear and explicit. Kevin Baas^talk 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the facts do not agree with you here,[106][107][108][109][110], nor do I. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• This was not a content edit, it's an edit to the summary of a link in a reference citation. The citation says see the 2004 DOE conclusion, but the text was not from the conclusion. I was sure it was an innocent mistake from whoever inserted the text, but the editor in question is now implying that it was deliberate. Be that as it may, it's an unambiguous factual error. As I say, the text was in quotes, represented as the "2004 DoE conclusion", but the quoted text was a small paragraph from the response to Charge Element 3, not from the conclusion. The sense is similar except that the Charge Element 3 response is more limited:

The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions."
original text, a small para from the response to charge element 3

versus

While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.
The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.
what the conclusion actually says

Here's the source itself: http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf

Honestly, I saw it as a copy-paste error. I don't mind removing the summary text altogether, or if someone wants to suggest an accurate citation text, but it was simply and unambiguously wrong, a trivial copyediting matter that I happened to notice and fix when I opened the report to respond to a point on the talk page - and of course I noted it on the talk page there and then. I really don't see why such a huge big deal is being made of this. I've explained in detail, and there is active discussion ont he talk page, so I see no reason it should have been brought here, unless it's to try and gain an advantage in what I never thought for a moment would actually be a dispute! Guy (Help!) 21:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I just don't buy that. I noticed from my watchlist that there were edits. I didn't particularly find the first edit problematic, but I didn't agree with the second one at all. The question of whether the removed information was "unnecessary" was debatable at the very least. I thought it should stay in as without it the reader would be wondering what research areas the reviewers thought should be investigated further. I went to revert it so that discussion could ensue on the talk page. But the page was fully protected. I wasn't able to revert the edits and JzG hasn't reverted them himself, despite being asked to do so at least twice. I'm very unhappy with the situation. Please note that I consider myself as a neutral editor in the edit warring on this page. I don't want to see it advocating cold fusion, which was a problem a few weeks ago, but I am also concerned that a group of editors including JzG want to take it the other way so that it is completely devoted to debunking the concept. I do hope that there will be no further insinuations about editors trying to gain an advantage by raising this issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The second edit was to cut out "two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods." - and I did that solely because the great chunk of text was unwieldy, and the reader probably does not need to know to that level of detail in a citation summary. Actually the whole thing is probably redundant, it could probably just be a link to the report and be no less useful. I don't mind. I just fixed an error of fact, quoting something as the conclusion which was not actually the conclusion, because it gave me a "huh?" moment. I have no interest in debunking the subject, my best friend worked in the lab where the original experiments went on and played a small part in them, he was very excited, he's still an academic in electrochemistry, I asked him about it before I saw this article and his view echoed the DoE report pretty much exactly - something odd is going on, but probably not cold fusion, people need to conduct some rigorous basic science to find out the source of the anomolous results. On the other hand, the repeated hijacking by free energy suppression people and other oddballs over the years is clearly unacceptable. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If I'm getting this right - the link of the citation was to something other than the conclusion (the response) but it was an accurate quote of the response? Without judging the other issues, wouldn't it have been easier to change the link? Avruchtalk 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know, like I said, it said "conclusions" so I pasted in the conclusions. Tat was the obvious thing, to me, since the conclusions are by definition more comprehensive than one single para from somewhere in the body (which may be out of context, after all, if quoted in isolation). It seemed easier to take the very short conclusion than to try to wordsmith a new citation based on why the original editor chose to use that paragraph, assuming it was not an error, which I thought it was. I've invited the editor, user:Pcarbonn, to say what he meant to put, but it's a recent thing so I don't think there's an answer yet. Pcarbonn has been a bit naughty about pushing the fringe side of cold fusion, but not to the point of forfeiting the assumption of good faith, for sure. As I say, it seemed really unambiguous to me. The summary said "conclusion", I went to the conclusion, the text was subtly different. I didn't even spot that it was from elsewhere in the report until I'd copied and pasted the conclusion text. As far as I care the quotation can go altogether, I don't see it adds much and I thik we quote it in the article anyway, I don't know why it's even quoted in the citation summary. The article's been hacked about a bit between competing POVs so it's a tad messy in places. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious from the talk page that the edit was controversial. Personally, I think you are altogether tight about the edit, the redirect above, and your views on the subject, but you should never have taken any admin action on either of those pages including using admin powers to edit after it was protected or to protect a redirect. Your discussion above about the merit of the edits & the redirects only emphasizes this. I don't think you even realize that this is wrong. DGG (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you are spot on there. First, the redirect. Scenario A: We take it to AfD, wait for consensus, then go to ArbCom enforcement and get Ed Poor slapped with a trout for creating a POV fork. Scenario B: We quickly fix the problem, identified by more than one editor, spare Ed the trout slap, and end up with a useful redirect and a discussion of how to cover the new terminology in the article. Why is Scenario B worse than Scenario A?

Second, the edit. I fixed a summary in a reference because it was unambiguously wrong and thus confusing. I freely apologise to everybody who has wasted time on this, but the encyclopaedia is clearly better off if people don't find that the linked text says something other than what the summary quotes - and in "quotes" at that. Seriously, if it's such a big problem, take the text out and just leave the link. We are supposed to make trivial clueful changes without bureaucracy and I honestly do think that was a trivial change, matching the quoted text to the title. Of course I should have foreseen that Pcarbonn would kick up a stink, I should have recognised it as his pet sentence from the report that he wants to stand in place of the conclusion in every instance because he feels it better reflects his interpretation of the report than the conclusion does, but I didn't. Why would we pander to that idiosyncracy anyway? It was simply a misquote, corrected, move on.

I freely admit that when I am pissed off I sometimes do things which are rash, but I was not pissed off then, I just fixed what looked to me like a mistake. And having fixed a mistake, I am (being me) reluctant to make it wrong again just for the sake of process. Sorry, that's just me. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell happened to common sense ? Clearly Guy is right here. Nuff said. Move on. Eusebeus (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, it is not just PCarbonn kicking up a fuss. I am cross too. JzG absolutely knew that the edits could have been controversial. It is a blatant abuse of admin privilege. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my request for the reversion or roll-back of the edits by JvG (aka "Guy"). It's a tempest in a teapot. (By the way, it was cold fusion research not Condensed_matter_nuclear_science which I created, and I have no objection to keeping everything about cold fusion in a single article.)

Let's unprotect the page and move on, as Eusebeus said. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2008 (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.

Advice needed regarding inclusion requirements

An apparently new user, User:Esborg / User:76.100.118.160, has engaged in what at first seemed to be spamming of a subject, or at least repeatedly attempting to add a wikilink to some type of alternative medicine practice. From the way the user has reacted to warnings, and the pattern of their continued edit history, I AGF and assume they were unfamiliar with our inclusion criteria and weren't engaging in commercial or malicious linkspamming. But....at the time no one could know that. (The point of all this comes at the end, but this history is important.)

• Special:Contributions/76.100.118.160
• Special:Contributions/Esborg

I happened upon it after seeing that other users were deleting what seemed to be spamming. I then contributed to their efforts:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Alternative_medical_systems&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Energy_therapy&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glossary_of_alternative_medicine&action=history

For that last one I left this edit summary:

• Not notable enough for inclusion. Write an acceptable article first." [111]

The following one I left intact because it seemed a logical place for him/her to place such a request (which fulfilled my request in my previous edit summary), and no inclusion criteria are required for making a request here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=181322992

The problems (only one...;-) start here (the same edit history as one listed above):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glossary_of_alternative_medicine&action=history

It's the one where I left this edit summary:

• Not notable enough for inclusion. Write an acceptable article first." [112]

Here User:John Gohde reverted me using this edit summary:

• "RV there is no such requirement. In fact, one of the primary reasons this Glossary exists is to avoid the creation of stub articles. See talk." [113]

I had read Talk and saw what looked like an argument that could be interpreted as instructions on how to bypass our inclusion criteria. I therefore deleted the link again with this edit summary:

• "Esborg has been spamming this link. Inclusion is fine if referenced with V & RS, and I have left one of his instances elsewhere." [114]

I am not interested in getting into an edit war or getting anywhere near a 3RR situation. I am asking for help in interpreting policy in such a situation. As I understand it, even stub articles have inclusion criteria, and inclusion in this type of glossary would at least need some type of V & RS to justify inclusion. Am I wrong?

If I am misinterpreting things, please let me know on my talk page and also do the courtesy of letting me restore it. If I am correct, I would appreciate it if other users would watch that article. -- Fyslee / talk 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like probable COI spam to me. I did a Google search on ("Fu Xi Wen" +open +source) based on the description of the link added to the glossary, that mentions "open source medicine". The search showed this website: http://www.fuxiwen.com - the name of the owner of the website is a lot like the user name Esborg (talk · contribs). The website strangely requires a legal agreement be accepted before viewing any of the additional pages so I stopped there. Per the user's talk page, it seems like Fu Xi Wen was speedy deleted in September. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. That clears up some background information about this particular user and their link. -- Fyslee / talk 06:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would still like an explanation of policy regarding the need for fulfilling inclusion criteria requirements or at least using V & RS to justify inclusion. -- Fyslee / talk 06:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bluemarine

I'm requesting a 48 hour block of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) for abusive comments. This user is also known as Matt Sanchez and a look at the recently archived Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive11 shows an extremely long history of abusive comments, most recently [115]. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I say indef block or ban. Hasn't he caused enough trouble as it is? Isn't there an Rfc on him now? And isn't this diff unpleasant enough to indef block, given all the other warnings he has had? Jeffpw (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him to stop. I don't think the diff Jeff gives is unpleasant enough to indef ban him. Based on [116], I think he's on his last warning now, though. Neıl ☎ 15:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read his Rfc? How many last warnings do you think this makes, now? And why is it that some editors get a free pass to edit their own bios, and behave in as abusive manner as they want on this site, while others are shown the door for much less? This guy is editing with an agenda and without regard for his fellow editors. Ticking his fingers each time he violates policy only encourages him to be that much more aggressive the next time. Jeffpw (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention his RfC - thanks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How many final warnings was the user given, exactly? I'll notify him of this thread, as well. Lawrence Cohen 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Four, if I count his recently archived talk page correctly. Three for uncivil behaviour, one for a possible legal threat. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was going to suggest a ban altogether, but looking at his history, he *does* contribute to other articles besides his own. I don't know if he's abusive on those or not, but I'll take a look. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, that is 4 final warnings, and 22 warnings in total, if I counted correctly, over a variety of issues, including NPA, CIV, sockpuppetry, COI, etc. Surely the community's patience has been exhausted by now? Jeffpw (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, he made it this long? Lawrence Cohen 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec3)*I've been following this for awhile, and personally I don't think he should be banned. I don't think he is consistently disruptive or abusive, and I can appreciate that he loses his cool occassionally as a result of some of the editors who work on the article provoking him. His article attracts a lot of tendentious editing, and while he is certainly not a model Wikipedian I don't think a ban is the answer. Avruchtalk 16:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whats the answer to stop someone who is routinely uncivil? Some sort of parole, do it again, banned? Lawrence Cohen 16:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I support Neil's issuing of a final warning and would endorse a block of up to a week should Matt Sanchez disregard it. I don't think a ban is the answer - we should be very reluctant to take such measures against people who have article about them (especially ones that have serious WP:BLP issues). Having followed some of the discussions on the talkpage of Matt Sanchez's article in the past, I know that there are a lot of efforts to bait him. That doesn't excuse his conduct, but I am sympathetic to the fact that there is more going on here than one rogue editor making random personal attacks. There has been some talk of refering the editing of Matt Sanchez and other articles to ArbCom - that is starting to seem a sensible way to go. WjBscribe 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what I mean by a free pass. Only one block, and that was for a legal threat. The rest of his grossly uncivil actions have only resulted in toothless warnings which he obviously feels he can disregard at this point. I'd say block him, and for each repeated infraction add to the block time. I haven't had time to go look and see the outcome of his sock case, but I know he as at least two accounts. Seriously, situations like these are what make people question Wikipedia's enforcement of policy. And just to be perfectly clear, I have neither read nor edited his article, and only know of this user through all the discussion his actions have provoked on various pages I watch. Jeffpw (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mattsanchez and User:Bluemarine, I believe. He hasn't, as far as I know, been accused of abusive sockpuppetry (at least I know I have been aware of both and they have been listed on the talk page for quite awhle). Avruchtalk 16:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I might have been tempted to block him, but Neil responded to this thread first and judged a final warning to be the appropriate response. I respect that decision. I suspect this matter is one that needs to go before ArbCom as it may require more carefully crafted remedies than simple blocks. WjBscribe 16:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't subjects of BLP if they edit here be held to the same policy standards as any other editor? I think it would be bad precedent to make them a special class of editors. Their articles are one thing, and BLP applies, but their behavior should be held to identical standards as anyone else. Lawrence Cohen 16:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In general I agree with you. But I think that should be tempered with some sympathy for the additional stress they may be under above other editors. Especially where there is an interest group trying to add weakly sourced information alleging that one has worked as a prostitute into your biography. My opposition was to a ban, which I think would be premature and a bad way of dealing with this particular problem. I think a block of up to one week would be appropriate should the behaviour continue - it would after all be his first block for incivility/personal attacks. WjBscribe 16:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A short block is usually the next step following a final warning to play nice - while I saw some warnings, I didn't see a "final" one, which is why I gave one (also noting he has made good faith edits). I also note there has, as yet, not been a valid block made on the account (the only one that has been made was overturned). Neıl ☎ 16:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that if (when) Matt acts unpleasant again, that it will be followed be an actual block. I agree he shouldn't be banned outright at this point, but he has gotten by being very incivil for a long time. There are some editors who deliberately bait him, but he is also incivil to those who are polite to him, sometimes even after they have agreed with him on a content issue. Aleta (Sing) 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• As someone who invested far too much time on trying to fix that article, I recognize that ArbCom might well be the only solution to the longstanding issues with it. (I dropped in after a month-long absence to see that little has changed.) The article has been semi-protected (or fully protected) for eight months now (protection was removed 3 days ago), and as soon as the IP warriors realize that it is open again, they will be out in force to attack Sanchez, which will result in another round of protection. Sanchez himself is not helping matters with his nasty attitude towards gay editors and his ceaseless self-promotion. As WjBscribe has pointed out, Sanchez has been baited by many people (including three now indefinitely-banned editors, one of whom runs an attack site dedicated to personally destroying Sanchez), but he seems to think that gay editors should not be allowed to edit the article (which is an issue, considering the LGBT WikiProject tag). Since blocks are not punitive in nature, I don't know if a block would be appropriate at this time, but I would support an indef-block upon his next blanket attack against gay or leftist editors. However, something should also be done to address the flock of single-purpose accounts associated with this article, most of which are anti-Sanchez editors with a clear agenda. Horologium (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• This person has additionally attacked homosexual editors? The NPA policy aside, does this cause problems with any sort of discrimination policies here? Lawrence Cohen 16:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Long time problematic user. He's had plenty of warnings. Support 1 week block now, 1 month on next infraction, indef after that. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He attacks them as biased against him or for inclusion of his porn history in the article. Avruchtalk 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Refer to the RFC for diffs. The history is rather extensive. Often, they have been posted after nasty comments from anti-Sanchez posters, but sometimes they are unprovoked or totally disproportionate. Many of the worst attacks (on the talk page) have been redacted by other editors (primarily me and WjBscribe), but some of them still appear in the extensive talk archives. Horologium (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For just one example, see this diff. Aleta (Sing) 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would block both user names, for at least 3 months' time or indef, for sockpuppetry, incivility, and the risk of further vandalism. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like we've got consensus that:

• If User:Mattsanchez or User:Bluemarine writes WP:CIVIL-violating comments or edit summaries he will be blocked for at least 48 hrs.

I'm going to be monitoring the article (and probably doing some minor cleanup), so I'll leave word here if anything requires admin attention. Since I'm not really an "uninterested party", I'd rather have another admin take any required action. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine blocked

I have blocked Matt Sanchez (User:Bluemarine) for 48 hours. He chose to disregard Neil's warning and made two attacks replacing the names of two others editors with crude homophobic references: [117], [118]. WjBscribe 05:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have done exactly the same thing - he was warned, and chose to ignore it. I suggest if he uses his other account to evade this block in the meantime, it (the alt account) ought to be indefinitely blocked. Neıl ☎ 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tara Whelan (resolved)

Resolved

I have tried to submit a 2nd AfD nomination for Tara Whelan at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_2#Tara_Whelan (2nd nomination), however I have not been able to do so properly. Can someone please help. I haven't been able to find any instructions on how to renominate for AfD, maybe my bad. Thanks. Happy New Year. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, looks fine to me. Avruchtalk 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sprotret (talk · contribs)

Resolved

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

---

All of Sprotret (talk · contribs)'s edits have been vandalism or nonsense. The extreme BLP vandalism and move vandalism of Regina Richards should result in a block. I've issued a uw-bv warning, but haven't taken this to WP:AIV because we haven't gone through four rounds of warnings. Corvus cornix_talk 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While the contributions are dubious at best, the user hasn't been active in about 5 and a half hours, which makes me wonder if a block is really necessary at this point. Since you have issued a final warning, the next time they vandalize, a report to AIV should suffice.

Their last edit was less than two hours ago. And they get a free pass on vandalism like this? And since I've put a uw-bv tag on their page, does that mean they now get to go through three more rounds of vandalism before anybody will do anything? Corvus cornix_talk 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I did look at my clock wrong, my apologies. No, of course they don't get a free pass for vandalism like that. As I said before, you issued a final warning, so if they edit again, they can be blocked immediately. But, after taking a look at the user's deleted contribs, I think a vandalism-only-account block may be in order. Sorry for overlooking that before. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:52, 2 January 2008 (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.

IPs in 63.3.10.1 > 63.3.10.2

Getting out of archive so a admin can finally do something about this

• 63.3.10.1 (talk · contribs)
• 63.3.10.2 (talk · contribs)
• Cowboycaleb1 (talk · contribs)

I have a feeling the IP's in this range are being used by blocked sockpuppeter Cowboycaleb1. I therefore, a few weeks ago, tagged 63.3.10.1 and 63.3.10.2 with the {{suspectedsockpuppet|Cowboycaleb1}} template. I believe this, as 63.3.10.130 has been determined to of been used by Caleb as found out in the SSP case for Caleb. However, since then, those 2 IP's, along with IPs in the 209.247.5.57 to 209.247.5.59 range have blanked the tags I left and simply left the message "This is a shared ip address.", see [119] [120] [121] [122]. I have reverted the IP edits a number of times, as my concern still stands. The IP's trace back to Memphis, Tennesse, where Caleb is from, as proved in the SSP case. Can someone block these IPs for two - three months as sockpuppets of Caleb. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

D.M.N. (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whois states the range is 63.0.0.0/10, and I wouldn't dare blocking that for 3 months. Does he stay on 63.3.10.0/24? (eg. 63.3.10.xx) -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 08:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible Socks?

User:24.20.216.95 and User:Brennusgroup. Both started editing this week and both have only edited the same 3 articles (with the exception of the IP putting a link to the movie that the registered account wrote the article about). It looks like either a good hand-bad account or something weird... --Smashville^BONK! 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you want a cookie? 72.193.221.88 (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? --Smashville^BONK! 02:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear what you wanted. I was thinking: "cookie." 72.193.221.88 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wanting to know opinions...--Smashville^BONK! 05:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They haven't done anything wrong, so this is pretty pointless. It looks like a well-meaning user who doesn't always remember to log in - please assume good faith. Neıl ☎ 09:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User Talk:FortKent Block Review (Resolved, reduced)

Resolved

 – block reduced to 48 hours

Per Special:Contributions/FortKent I've just blocked, without many warnings, this user indef. Sorry if my WP:AGF has run out but it's trolling to me. Only bringing it here as I'm about to go offline, and will not be back until 08:00 UTC. I have no issues with an unblock at all, if someone feels the editor deserves another chance. Night all! Pedro :  Chat  22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He claims in his unblock request that he was just being bold. Those weren't edits consistent with a new user being bold. I think it would take an experienced user to find and redirect RfA and a malicious intent to make the edits he made. Sometimes AGF must take a back seat to IAR and protecting the project. Dlohcierekim 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted this user made his last edit in the same minute he received his first warning. In any event, his edits were truly bizarre for a new user. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned, ceases editing, then blocked indefinitely? Have I read the page history right? DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That certainly would appear to be the case here - Alison ^❤ 23:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the block occurred before the next edit. However, it may have just been that the next bad edit was pre-empted. 6 bad "test edits" is a pretty bad start. Dlohcierekim 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The first two edits seem fine to me, and as far as I can tell actually clarified the meaning of the sentence (if not the simplest way of doing so). And the next four were self consistent. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I doubt its a new user, but it looks like this one should be unblocked or at least have the block reduced to something reasonable. Avruchtalk 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I reduced the block to two days.   jj137 ^♠ 00:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the reduction to two days. Thank you Jj137, and all. Pedro :  Chat  07:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

cold fusion

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

---

Resolved

 – Referred to DR

Consequent on the discussion above. Doc has unprotected the article, and almost immediately user:Pcarbonn made this edit [123].

There is a problem here. It is a cherry-picked sentence from the middle of the report which supports his preferred interpretation that the reviewers were virtually unanimous in supporting more research; the report's conclusion is more neutral, and the link says "conclusions of", but Pcarbonn wants to say that the conclusion is much more supportive than actually it is. I've had more than enough of this querulous POV-pushing, could we have more eyes please. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC) ... And, after a brief storm of POV editing, protection back on. Perhaps we should just leave it to the kooks and have a quiet life. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reprotected the article. I no sooner unprotect it than inane edit warring resumes. Take this to dispute resolution - and don't bring the content dispute here. I'm tempted to block everyone concerned.--Doc^g 23:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Feel free, I'm sick to death of resisting fringe science POV pushers and could do with a break :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm concerned with this edit, where Pcarbonn removes the major quote. A few edits later, he inserts the OTHER contentious paragraph he prefers. ThuranX (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is no longer an AN/I issue. Avruchtalk 23:47, 2 January 2008 (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.

Aatomic1 editwaring again (resolved)

Resolved

 – page protected, no action against Aatomic1 taken

User:Aatomic1 has just dropped into this article Easter Rising for a spot of edit waring. This issue was discussed and the references don't support the statement. All they want is to join the POV bandits on this article. Could Admin's review this article, and the editors. --Domer48 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for one week due to edit wars.   jj137 ^♠ 00:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - semi-protected? Is Aatomic1 not the one edit-warring? I thought edit-war protections were usually full? ^Avruchtalk 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was full protection. Marking resolved. ^Avruchtalk 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite Block applied - user HowFake

HowFake (talk · contribs) was identified as a vandalism only account targeting The Pinks by inspection of contributions and summarily blocked indefinitely. This message is to notify so that opinion regarding the action can be registered. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a vandal, but why not give him a final warning instead of blocking? All he received was a level 1 cluebot warning. I personally doubt he has anything constructive to add, but he stopped editing hours before you blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User makes a total of 4 edits in a 6 minute time frame, and is indef blocked. Doesn't seem appropriate given the edits he made, which were vandalism, but not anything more than that. No warnings except for one. Should definately be unblocked, and given a final warning for the vandalism, and the misleading edit summaries, asap, IMO. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It obviously a bad faith account and warnings are just a formality. A short block may have been a better idea. John Reaves 04:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating sockpuppets

If this is the wrong place, I apologize. I am not sure if it is Tajik or Beh-nam who is creating these new sockpuppets, but they keep appearing. CanadianAnthropologist (talk · contribs)/HariRud (talk · contribs)/KabuliTajik (talk · contribs)/BamyanMan (talk · contribs)/Padmanii (talk · contribs)/AntiFascism (talk · contribs). The latest is Ghurid (talk · contribs) who picked right up after AntiFascism (talk · contribs) was blocked. --Bejnar (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghurid appears to have been created inside the account creation block levelled against AntiFascism. Uh, I have nothing more to say, but I felt that worth noting. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-BS Squad (talk · contribs)

Hello, I'd like to voice concerns about User:Anti-BS Squad. Although "BS" stands for "big squid", this can be easily confused with "bullshit." I didn't go to UAA, but what does everyone else think? JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me, personally. Even if it was intended to represent bullshit, I don't think that necessarily would be a huge problem considering its abbreviated and not a directed epithet (like F-U-A-Hole). ^Avruchtalk 04:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. John Reaves 04:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah, I guess it's okay, but I doubt the person had the name "Anti-Big Squid Squad" (heh, Squid Squad!) when they created an account. Unless of course the user is a Giant Squid hunter. I guess it can slide - BS stands for more than I'd expected. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It obviously stands for bull shit. The username is inflamatory and aggressive and it wouldnt be a problem if the edits coming from the username werent agressive ([124],[125]). I have a slight hunch that this is another a Kirbytime sock (claims had old username, started right when Atarti400 was banned, Islamophobia) but time will tell. Anyway, I'll AGF for now and will keep an eye on this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I think I'm right. Anyway, we'll see. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh...... does 0rrAvenger (talk · contribs · block log) ring a bell? Similar username. He made a mistake. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nercronalon (LWA)

Nercronalon (LWA) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Needs a block; sockpuppet of User:LaruaWA11, as evident from the users' first contributions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And by the initialization. I was curious as to how you suspected it was that user's sockpuppet, but I got it now. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. John Reaves 04:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Somebody please protect User talk:Nercronalon (LWA). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Been done. Thanks, User:Jéské Couriano. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

More

Maybe these should be blocked now? Special:User creation log. Should probably protect all the talk pages also, he always abuses the unblock and helpme tags after blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that was kind of silly of him. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure was. There are still a couple more that aren't blocked; see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of LaruaWA11. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If any more pop up, be sure to protect their userpages after you block them - I just got through protecting a spate of them. In the meantime, is it possible to add "(LWA)" to HBC NameWatcherBot's filter? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've blocked all of them. John Reaves 05:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

S/he may still create more, hence the reason I asked if it was possible to add "(LWA)" to the filter so that HBC NameWatcherBot could flag them. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I know admins can add things. The page is User:HBC NameWatcherBot/Blacklist. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that, but I don't know if the parentheses will break the bot. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't think about that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(RI) I'll ask on the bot op's userpage. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits of Pandiyann (resolved)

Resolved

 – user is banned sock, indef blocked

Pandiyann (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Actually, looking deeper into this a little bit - I notice that this editor has a long history of abusive edits and edit summaries, including this page: Talk:1957_Ramnad_riots. I think this could stand for some additional review, and perhaps an additional step beyond the warnings already on his talk page. This type of SPA caste-warring is inappropriate at the least. Avruchtalk 22:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Notifying Pandiyann of this thread now, sorry 'bout the delay. Avruchtalk 00:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Abusive edit summaries

• 08:06, 19 December 2007 (hist) (diff) m Pandyan Kingdom‎ (This section must be excluded frm this article as this is not an article abt tamil castes. The low caste scum, Paravar, will be gettin his share soon.......)

• 03:06, 20 December 2007 (hist) (diff) m Pandyan Kingdom‎ (I know my history too damn well, moron. If u r too damn sure of wat u r speakin abt, y use different ip addresses to post this crap. Afraid that u might get kicked! Better quit, fisherman!!!)

• 03:41, 19 December 2007 (hist) (diff) m Pandyan Kingdom‎ (The fool from Madras should think thrice b4 speaking abt this caste. Get the heck out of this site or go thru the aricle in wiki abt this caste and shut up!! -Nadar Sagham)

• 10:07, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (Undid revision 170301361 by 203.94.202.95 (talk) The article must be protected from morons!!!!)

• 11:04, 8 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (Undid revision 170048828 by 203.193.184.206 (talk) y don't u get the hell out of this site...)

• 11:05, 31 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (Undid revision 168276090 by Tn pillai (talk) The coward is back to display non-sense...!!!)

• 14:15, 5 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:1957 Ramnad riots‎ (←Created page with '==Nicely written piece of shit to aggravate the fame of Kamarajar== The 1957 riot happened due to many reasons. This article was obviously written by some thevar to...')

• 14:16, 23 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (The loser tn.pillai returns with baseless theories...)

These are just edit summaries... Avruchtalk 01:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Some interesting edits can be found:

• here

• and here

• and here (look at the above comments by him there also)

• here

Takes awhile to find typical contributions, because a lot of it seems to be revert warring. Avruchtalk 01:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My take

As someone from this region and belonging to none of the castes being discussed, I can state the following.

• As for the content dispute part, I've commented at Talk:Pandyan_Kingdom#Edit war reported.
• Pandiyann's edit summaries are clearly offensive to caste sensitivities.
• Some of the anon editors' (from the opposite camp) edit summaries in the Pandyan Kingdom page are equally offensive and provocative.

I'd prefer NPOV brought by removing claims from either group and adding any of them only after discussing in the talk page and only if citations are provided. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He's a sock of the banned PONDHEEPANKAR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've blocked it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, everybody, for clearing up the mess and nastyness. I know I'm not an administrator, but I will pop in from time to time to check on that article, to see that the ones left are being civil. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion on User:Calumbyers (resolved)

Resolved

Could somebody take a look at User:Calumbyers and Calum byers? Besides being an nn bio, the article looks like an attack page. But since it's written by User:Calumbyers (who claims to have sourced the article from an interview with the subject), the User name itself seems problematic. Corvus cornix_talk 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I speedied it per A7, didn't assert significance.   jj137 ^♠ 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What about blocking the User? And deleting the User page? Corvus cornix_talk 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I warned the user   jj137 ^♠ 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned them what? They're using somebody else's name as their User name. And their User page is still an attack. Corvus cornix_talk 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that they aren't the person? Also, just looking at the user page, without knowing what "GSA" is, I don't see how it is an attack. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the deleted Calum byers page they created, in which they said they got the information about the article "FROM" Calum byers, and in which they claimed that the GSA is a gay organization. Corvus cornix_talk 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that no admin will do anything about this situation, so I have blanked the offensive User page. Corvus cornix_talk 16:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:TVS consensus

The established consensus for television station articles is to only include staff members who appear on-air. Several individuals have been adding non-air staff to WKYT-TV, in blatant violation of that established consensus. What is the best way to deal with that sort of issue? I've been told when trying to report the individual for vandalism that the edits have been in good faith. But they stand outside of the establihed guidelines for those articles. The person in question refuses to communicate and certainly does not want to cooperate with everyone else. --Mhking (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• You've got yourself in an edit war my friend. Seven reversions in less than 24hrs. Whoa now, time to step back and take it to the talk page. RMHED (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and 3RR warned. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I've backed off of reverting the other two editors in question. Despite taking the conversation to the talk page of the editors in question along with the talk page of the article in question, I've received no feedback from anyone else involved. I still am pleading for guidance and commensurrate intervention from others both here and in WP:TVS. Thanks in advance... --Mhking (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not able to get any further guidance here, I'll go to WP:3O to see if there can be any other means of solving this impasse, but I remain open to any additional suggestions and guidance. --Mhking (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Dissruptive Editing by user Koonleg50 (talk · contribs) 2nd complaint

This user has been engaging in disruptive editing practices for the past week on Wing Chun and Wing Tsun, and Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu and several other pages. He was previously blocked for these practices. This includes consistently adding WP:OR, and altering references and referenced sections. I have tried to help and compromise by working in some of the material in to a non WP:OR and a WP:NPOV format, yet he continues to revert and push more WP:OR. He has been engaged via the talk pages for those entries as well and has had it explained how he needs verifiable references. He responded with more WP:OR, followed by more reverts on the main pages along with an addition of a link to his personal blog for a reference, as well as references back to wikipedia. The user has also used multiple anonymous IP's. He just engaged in a revert war as well again at Wing Tsun and has started the same at Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu and List of Chinese martial arts. I have stopped before reaching 3rd this time. I'm requesting administrator intervention again.

Here is the record for the previous block:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive347#Dissruptive_Editing_by_user_Koonleg50.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29

--Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone that can take care of this? Its 12 hours later and he's still continuing his disruptive editing across all the pages mentioned, doing everything he was warned not to do after the last block. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I give up, its 3am and I need sleep. He's still going at it, moving pages, doing reverts, pushing WP:OR, etc. and now throwing up "edit protect" tags in an attempt to keep his reverts. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked by admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Off to sleep for me......*thud*. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Koonleg50 (talk · contribs) is promoting a school of martial arts that does not have external references (for example, books, documentary) and has a name that is identical to a widely known martial art (Wing Chun). In order for him to do that, I suggest the following:

1) Provide a reference or source to his information other then the organization's website. His reference provide no information on this style so according to the information on the site I would consider it a traditional Wing chun school. If I can see some additional information the nature of this style then I can consider it a separate and distinct style.

2) Refrain from editing the Wing Tsun pages because according to you, it is not your style anyways. Find a classification that matches your style, describe your similiarities to other Southern styles and your uniqueness but leave the traditional Wing Tsun information alone. For example, if your style is more related to Fukien style, Hung Kuen or White Cranes, describe it. Then we can relate in within the broader context of this encyclopedia. The Weng Chun style might be interesting but I do not have the information to make any inform decisions about this style.

3) I and the Wikipedia community are here to help each and everyone to contribute and disseminate quality information.

--Ottawakungfu (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion (resolved)

Resolved

Will someone take a look at Talk:Blood_libel_against_Jews#Jewish_women_admitting_Child_sacrifice_on_OPRAH. User 85.92.85.2 (talk) claims to be the same editor as the blocked IP 78.86.159.199 (talk), which seems like a pretty clear-cut case of block evasion, if true. Note that I did not ask for the original block, and I think his conduct so far, although clearly inflammatory could probably be handled without the use of administrator tools. He also claims that he's editing from a computer at some kind of student residence. Perhaps someone who knows how to get the information to use the {{SharedIP}} tag should take a look at this and see if it applies. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's odd; the new IP doesn't seem nearly as rude and trollish as the first one. Maybe he took the hint? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the first one; I'm inclined to block-evasion block the second, but if someone else wants to try to reason with them a bit first then I will hold off. They do seem to have become somewhat more reasonable with the second IP. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

DOS and MS-DOS Compatible Operating Systems (Resolved)

Resolved

There had been a dispute that DOS be deleted or merged into MS-DOS for various reasons. It survived a vote for deletion (unanimous keep) and a vote to merge (unanimous oppose). Consensus was that DOS was a separate entity and deserved an article. One of the opponents (see here) moved the DOS article to MS-DOS Compatible Operating Systems, and changed the DOS redirect to DOS (disambiguation) so that it can't be moved back. They didn't put a discussion up before doing this (other than that linked above, which doesn't mention moving). Could this be moved back and move protected until a discussion and consensus could be done? 69.221.166.33 (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty ridiculous, and needs to be reverted. This is total circumvention of the process to achieve a goal that was discouraged. I'd also support a block of the editor. ThuranX (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved back. I am going to issue A Plague of Rainbows with a strong warning about unrevertible moves. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If it happens again another admin should move-protect the page. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal of irreversible page moves, "scorched earth" moves may be summarily reversed without any discussion. east.718 at 14:43, January 3, 2008

Same anon; thank you very much. It's been in the VfD and merge votes above; I wish people would let the issue drop already. Thanks again. 69.221.152.25 (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP concerns on candidate pages (American election)

Just an FYI, the first major event in the American election cycle for 2008 is January 3rd, the Iowa Caucus. All the candidate pages may be major vandal targets. Lawrence Cohen 07:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Those candidate pages would be Joe Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson. Neıl ☎ 09:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They may well be vandalised but I don't think we need worry about BLP concerns. Politicians are highly public figures. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that most admins will be more open to semi-prot if we see vandal activity in light of the timeframe, but we may get lots of good IP contribs as well. I'm more concerned that after semi-prot, we'll see sleeper acc'ts popping up for weeks, but that's nto totally a bad thing either. ThuranX (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mervin 110694, part 2

Resolved

 – Blocked indef until they respond to warnings and agree to stop.

Can anyone stop the madness of User:Mervin 110694? S/he uploads images without copyright tags, adds logos for decoration, and several other useless GMA POV-pushing edits. --Howard the Duck 12:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor also had problems with copyvios in articles; hasn't responded to any warnings or communication. Blocked indef until they communicate and agree to stop. Shell ^babelfish 13:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. --Howard the Duck 14:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT violation?

Resolved

Could some admin undo this unwarranted and undiscussed move?[126] I think WP:POINT needs to be explained.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I'll drop a note at the user's talk page. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous threatening

IP 122.167.6.1 (talk · contribs) is threatening to ban me, accusing me of spreading fascist, racial propaganda, telling about some "legal action" against wikipedia in Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist). An investigation is necessary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he can't ban you.--Phoenix-wiki 14:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible for an IP or a standard user to block anyone from Wikipedia. Only Adminstrators can do that. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 14:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This IP is continuing legal threats. Please see User talk:122.167.6.1. Demanding "formal explanation from wikipedia before proceding with legal action". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This user is violating WP:NPA WP:NPOV and has WP:COI Special:Contributions/122.167.6.1, please block his IP. Igor Berger (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a short period of time. However this does not mean that he is the only user at fault in this dispute. I have not looked in detail at the situation, but it is clear to me that 122.167... has in some way been baited by other users, even if he instigated some offence to them. I'll remind all parties to observe no personal attacks and civility policies, and suggest that they consider pursing dispute resolution, from step one, after 122.167...'s block expires. Martinp23 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the anon editor was provoked in any way. Their allegations that everyone editing the article is a fascist are completely unprovoked and without foundation. The targets of their attacks have been remarkably calm.--Conjoiner (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The anon user has definately broken against WP:LEGAL. However, as per the other accusations presented here by Igorberger, I would disagree. The debate climate on the Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist) has deteriorated significantly in the recent period, but it would be unfair to attribute this solely to the anon user. As per NPOV, the massive POV edits in the mainspace have been done by other users, whose sole purpose in editing the mainspace of this article has been to push negative pov. As per COI, this was an accusation raised on the talk page, an accusation that (see the talk page in question) was full of flaws. --Soman (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Washington Square Park, New York

Resolved

 – user given a welcome and advice

This IP User:207.237.41.137 persists in inserting a lengthy, highly partisan edit to the recent controversies about rebuilding the park, complete with use of people's and organizations' names in a manner which suggests to me that the IP is one of the people on a particular side of the dispute, probably one of two people favorably described. Could somebody check me on this and consider semi-protection? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has made three edits, one correcting a typo. Rememberr don't bite the newbies. I have just left the user a welcome message and advice about COI editing. Hopefully the communication will alert them to our social norms and they will respond appropriately. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

requesting a block of User_talk:82.36.179.158

Resolved

The user has been given enough warnings User_talk:82.36.179.158 and vandalizing and deleting Hippocrates Igor Berger (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User has been blocked 31 hours. Keilana^talk_(recall) 17:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Georgexx41 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

• When I reverted some routine Yu-Gi-Oh! vandalism, I noticed this user uploaded an extraordinarily large image that doesn't load. I'm worried that this may not be an image at all, but some malicious program. Could someone check it? JuJube (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:She and meh.jpg deleted under CSD I2. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have been a photoshop file. —Random832 18:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats on Oxford Round Table?

Resolved

Hi, I've been trying to tidy up this article from what seemed like an extensive piece of original research to begin with. It's looking more encyclopaedic now with the input of other editors too. However, there are claims it is an attack page, and there has now been mention of legal issues on the talk page here. Some of the editors also seem to be single purpose accounts, not that this is anything new or worthy of punitive action, but I just thought I'd mention it. Anyway, I thought I'd flag the article here because I can see it might get out of hand sometime soon... Coldmachine^Talk 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the editor who made the legal threat and - big surprise - it threw up an autoblock three minutes later. east.718 at 18:09, January 3, 2008

Unblock of Callmebc

(section courtesy blanked)

Copacabana

I believe an article which I helped to construct has been a victim of abuse of power by an administrator, and decided to write here in request for help, since the dialogue between all the parties has been aggressive and offense-riddled.

I have been envolved for some time in a discussion about the Copacabana -- Copacabana (disambiguation), and I think it may need some external arbitration. I have reorganized the article, in order to classify the topics being disambiguated by order of relevance, that is, cities first, then neighbourhoods, then nightclubs and other places named 'Copacabana'. Sadly, my changes kept being reverted and I was repeatedly insulted by an individual native from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, who kept offending me and, unable to disguise his nationalistic bias and partiality, would not accept that there should even be a disambiguation page for what he considered to be "his" Copacabana (Rio de Janeiro), and even when a consensus was achieved that this page should indeed exist, he kept altering the page in order to have his Copacabana (Rio) on top of the list, even though it is a neighbourhood, in contrast to cities which were named Copacabana hundreds of years before.

User:EconomistBR, the user in question, appealed to an administrator, User:Hu12, who took an unfair and unbalanced view, in my opinion, and exercised his prerrogative to block the page in a somewhat arrogant and authoritarian way, refusing to properly debate the subject. Furthermore, he has blocked the page for editing without properly double-checking it, therefore leaving the page with some spelling and editing mistakes (pieces of links which do not work etc). I appeal to all other administrators who might be interested in helping me solve this problem to take a look at that page and see what could best be done for the good of Wikipedia, which, in my point of view, has been the only harmed in this débacle. Rsazevedo (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(2x ec) As the main search term was a redirect to a disambig page (which makes no sense), I've gone ahead and fixed that. east.718 at 15:18, January 3, 2008

Discussion location → Talk:Copacabana. I might also add this page is being extremly disrupted by Rsazevedo. My protecting the page was a reuslt of severe disruption by Rsazevedo after an appeal by User:EconomistBR here →User_talk:Hu12#Request_for_really_simple_conflict_resolution. Neither versions seemed to follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Both parties participated in edit warring and WP:NPA, however Rsazevedo seems to have engaged in tendentious editing in pursuit of a certain point for an extended period of time attempt to disrupt Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point and despite discussions, is perpetuating this conflict through the use of brute force and Harassment.

• "CNN talks about it". Oooooh, I'm impressed! :) What kind of an argument is that, "CNN talks about it"? hahahahahah
• Why the hell did you delete my entry in the discussion in the Copacabana article?
• Are you mentally challenged?
• By the way, the correct spelling is "biased", and not BISED; you should know better, cause you seem to fit that concept perfectly.
• Man, you really are a nut job! Get a life

--Hu12 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are biased, Hu12. You conveniently "forgot" to mention that I had been extremely restrained, even though EconomistBR had been offending me, and it was only after he called me A LIAR in a TOPIC and being repeatedly offended by him that I lost my patience and eventually lashed out -- something which I, BTW, deeply regret and am not proud of. But may I ask why you did not quote his offenses as well?

• 'Rsazevedo you lied to me
• Rsazevedo, you said that Wikipedia "is not the place for nationalistic displays" but you displayed an incredible degree of nationalism when you created a page redirect just to get your precious Copacabana Bolivia on top of the alphabetical list.
• Don't worry your Copacabana (Bolivia) is top of list at Wikipedia's expense.
• (Your Copacabana Bolivia comes on top is all 3 organizing methods created. It's shameful)
• I have nothing agaist you is just that you lied to me when you said that Wikipedia "is not the place for nationalistic displays".
• This is proves that you are bised and corrupted Wikipedia for personal ends. It's quite sad really, I always try to be impartial, you've given up on that.
• But I guess your "work" here is done. Your precious Copacabana Bolivia, which you visited, is first on the list. You've spread your personal views at Wikipedia corrupting this encyclopedia, and then lied to others about Wikipedia not being "the place for nationalistic displays".
• 3 organizing methods the same result - this is Rsazevedo at work Good job, some Brazilian you are.
• You have no shame, you should admit that you are biased. After 3 organizing methods with the same result your lame excuses are a joke.

Please try to understand my point of view and not be that one-sided. I am NOT a vandal and have always contributed positively to Wikipedia, you can check all my previous edits. Have some respect, both for myself and for Wikipedia. Rsazevedo (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another key to the problem here, Rsazevedo. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral..^[127]--Hu12 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That is simply not true, Hu12. I may well have a bias, as everyone does, but this is certainly the case where I have not incurred in that (if I were being biased, wouldn't I change the page in favour of my country, putting Copacabana (Rio) on top as EconomistBR did? On the contrary, I prefered what seemed to me the better way for Wikipedia to present a disambiguation page); I simply tried to set the page in a logical and rational way. If you disagree, you could have at least discussed it, something which you, under the cloak of Administrative Authority, has consistently refused to do.

On the other hand you have been acting with an enormous degree of bias, in favour of EconomistBR, perhaps because he came seeking for help in your talk page, to the point where you chose to portray me here as someone inherently bad who does nothing on Wikipedia but offend others and conveniently "forgetting" to post EconomistBR's offences and disruptions. I'm appalled, and considering leaving Wikipedia for good if that is the standard of decisions one has to put up with. Rsazevedo (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This case seems to be an attempt by Rsazevedo to continue to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Attempts to resolve this dispute has resulted in attacks against myself and wholsale mischaracterizing of my good faith actions to make me seem unreasonable or improper. In this situation, Rsazevedo is attempting to perpetuate the disputes act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, by sticking to a WP:POINT, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity. A slippery slope, in which usualy ends in a block.--Hu12 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you protect a page you've been involved in a dispute on after reverting to your own version? east.718 at 17:20, January 3, 2008

Why not? Its not my dispute and an appropriate action due to the disruption.--Hu12 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair we can't blame Rzacevedo alone for the uncivil path that led to this content dispute, here is just a nice quote of what the other half (EconomistBR) has said as well: "3 organizing methods the same result - this is Rsazevedo at work Good job, some Brazilian you are." was there really a need to escalate this to the point where one user attacks the other's nationality? I doubt it, either both of them calm down or both receive a nice block for uncivility, no preference for one user or the other. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hu12, I tried to discuss with you my "standards to apply", but you chose to ignore them and in an unprecedent and authoritarian way imposed yours. Does it not seem logical to you that the first city in the world to be called Copacabana should the be the first in the disambiguation page, considering that the others were named after that? And, not only that, should a city not come before a neighbourhood in a list of relevance? I have never received an answer for these topics, and, instead, have been patronized insistentely by you.

It's behaviours such as these that are the sort of stuff which exhausts the patience of productive editors such as myself and degrade Wikipedia's reliability.

Now, for the last time, I am asking to correct the mistakes you left in Copacabana and answer the question I asked you in its talk page. Rsazevedo (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rsazevedo, you make serious, baseless and defamatory accusations. I requested Hu12 to resolve our conflict. Since Hu12 is an Wikipedia administrator and therefore his impartiality is above doubts, we must be prepared to acknowledge and accept his ruling on our conflict. Instead, by accusing him of being partial and a dictator you, Rsazevedo, drag his name and reputation through the mud.

Rsazevedo, nothing can stop you from having your way, if it takes bullying and smearing the reputation of a Wikipedia Administrator so be it.

The user Rsazevedo is going to keep this unashamed defamation, continue this relentless slander and making false accusations until people give up and allow Rsazevedo to have his way.

I admit, I behaved badly and in an uncivil manner, so did Rsazevedo. But there was no justification to drag Hu12 into our conflict. Rsazevedo dragged Hu12 into our fight as vengeance because Hu12's decision was not satisfactory to Rsazevedo.

EconomistBR (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That is simply a lie, EconomistBR, as anyone who checks the history of the discussions will tell. I did not "drag" anyone into this, I don't even have the power to do so. You cannot change facts; a lie will always be a lie, no matter how much you scream and shout. And the proof that you don't regret your disgraceful behaviour is that you keep doing the same things, offending me over and over. Will any responsible administrator take a stand against this person? I am being seriously offended by him, and this shouldn't be allowed to go on.

Can an administrator also please fix the mistakes left by Hu12 when he blocked the Copacabana page? I explained them in the talk page, and Hu12 doesn't seem to be very interested in correcting the page, only in preventing me from editing it. Rsazevedo (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't one of you just opened a request for comment before involving a admin in this? disputes like this one are better solved with consensus of the community instead of a admin making the choice. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no community on that page just the 2 of us, I had previously tried to reach consensus with Rsazevedo, but he simply ignored me, undid my editing and written some excuse justifying his actions. The Rsazevedo has twice undone edits made by Hu12. Hu12 edited the list and we should have both accpeted it but he embarked on this smearing campaign to get things his way.

Defamatory and slanderous accusation made by Rsazevedo against Hu12

• Rsazevedo calls Hu12 an abusive administrator: "victim of abuse of power by an administrator"
• Rsazevedo accuses Hu12 of having bias: "You have revealed yourself to be tremendously partial do EconomistBR's opinion"
• Rsazevedo calls Hu12 a dictator: "I would appreciate some further explanation of your actions, rather than unsubstantiated dictatorial acts"
• Rsazevedo calls Hu12 arrogant: "exercised his prerrogative to block the page in a somewhat arrogant and authoritarian way"
• Rsazevedo calls Hu12's opinion unfair: "EconomistBR, the user in question, appealed to an administrator, User:Hu12, who took an unfair and unbalanced view"

This smearing campaign and personal attacks of Rsazevedo against Hu12 is Rsazevedo's vengeance against Hu12, because Hu12's impartial ruling didn't produce satisfactory results to Rsazevedo.

I behaved badly and I was uncivil at many times, so was Rsazevedo. But there was NO reason to put Hu12's intergrity into question. This was a low blow EconomistBR (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

EconomistBR, please refrain at once from offending me. I don't think I have to remind you that you're breaking all possible rules in proper behaviour in Wikipedia, and I once again call for a responsible administrator to punish you accordingly.

Keep in mind:

• Wikipedia:Civility: be civil and avoid harassment.
• Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

*Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.

Penalties for behaviour such as the one you're displaying vary in length from a three-month to a one-year ban. Rsazevedo (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to reach a consensus with Rsazevedo, but he ridiculed me:

• "and much less "CNN talks about it". Oooooh, I'm impressed! :) What kind of an argument is that, "CNN talks about it"? hahahahahah"

Someone who makes this kind of comment doesn't want consensus, he wants to shove his view down everyone's thoats.

Rsazevedo has also offended and ridiculed me other times:

• "Are you mentally challenged?"
• "Now go watch the fireworks in Copacabana and stop crying, Mr Carioca. :)"
• "Man, you really are a nut job! "
• "Get a life, carioca"
• "EconomistBR is the one who is being intolerant" —Preceding unsigned comment added by EconomistBR (talk • contribs) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are your displays of impartiality and civility, EconomistBR:

• 'Rsazevedo you lied to me
• Rsazevedo, you said that Wikipedia "is not the place for nationalistic displays" but you displayed an incredible degree of nationalism when you created a page redirect just to get your precious Copacabana Bolivia on top of the alphabetical list.
• Don't worry your Copacabana (Bolivia) is top of list at Wikipedia's expense.
• (Your Copacabana Bolivia comes on top is all 3 organizing methods created. It's shameful)
• I have nothing agaist you is just that you lied to me when you said that Wikipedia "is not the place for nationalistic displays".
• This is proves that you are bised and corrupted Wikipedia for personal ends. It's quite sad really, I always try to be impartial, you've given up on that.
• But I guess your "work" here is done. Your precious Copacabana Bolivia, which you visited, is first on the list. You've spread your personal views at Wikipedia corrupting this encyclopedia, and then lied to others about Wikipedia not being "the place for nationalistic displays".
• 3 organizing methods the same result - this is Rsazevedo at work Good job, some Brazilian you are.
• You have no shame, you should admit that you are biased. After 3 organizing methods with the same result your lame excuses are a joke.

Once again I call on you, EconomistBR, to refrain at once from offending me. I don't think I have to remind you that you're breaking all possible rules in proper behaviour in Wikipedia, and I once again call for a responsible administrator to punish you accordingly.

Keep in mind:

• Wikipedia:Civility: be civil and avoid harassment.
• Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

*Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.

Penalties for behaviour such as the one you're displaying vary in length from a three-month to a one-year ban. Rsazevedo (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked

As noted in bold red type at the top, this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Per the recommendation of Caribbean H.Q., I have blocked both Rsazevedo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and EconomistBR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours in order to stop the out-of-control mudslinging above. Once the block expires, both users are invited to settle their content dispute according to WP:DR. Sandstein (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the drama continues on their respective talk pages proves that they were talking past, not to, eachother. Unblocks posted, one so far declined, bets on how long before the other? ^Avruchtalk 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion on block

I'd appreciate another admin or two dropping by User talk:VigilancePrime to review a recent block I've issued against this user. I've found him to be insistent on disruptive and incivil behavior as a result of a heated debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)‎, where several editors have ventured into personal attacks. Despite repeated warnings and requests to cool off, he's continued to act aggressively, so I issued a 24 hour block ([128]).

Please do not add to this thread unless you are an admin reviewing this block; I'm not interested in bringing additional drama over here. Thanks. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I regret that I do not consider these blocks to be well formed, if only that you appear to be a party to one opinion (the opposing one to VigilancePrime) in the dispute. I thought the original block to be unsound, as I fail to understand the premise of removing VigilancePrime's reasons - supported by diffs - for their vote, and then blocking for disruption when they attempted to return them to the page, but did not comment as the tariff was for 3 hours. As a party to the AfD you should have then requested an uninvolved admin for their input. Whatever subsequent disruption, which I shall now review, I believe devolves from a misjudged action previously. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) I am not involved in the AfD, despite accusations to the contrary. A quick search for my name and look through edit histories will confirm that. I've just been monitoring it to try and keep a lid on the incivil conduct there; VP's page is one of several which I visited asking editors to cool off. In other words, I was the uninvolved admin which people have been clamoring for - it's just that when some saw the decision turn in a way they didn't like, they began looking for hidden reasons. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I have been checking the contribs and counts, etc. and withdraw the incorrect suggestion that you have a previous history with the AfD or the subject - I have thus struck through those comments. :::I still don't understand the removal of VigilancePrime's reason for vote change, since WP:Point (the only reason I can see) was not cited and there was supporting diffs for his contention. Paedophile related AfD's (or anything else regarding the subject) are never going to be civil affairs, and it is my experience that some of those who believe they are acting on the side of the angels certainly do not conduct themselves as if they are of that company. Removing VigilancePrime's comments, and subsequently blocking for re-instating them, while not addressing the incivility of those opposing VP's (original) vote and... er... standing on the matter seems a little unevenhanded. VP should not, of course, react as he has - but I can see where the frustration comes from.

Of course, I acknowledge the sensitivity that surrounds this subject - and have a history for blathering my liberal viewpoint as regards it - so I suggest that this response is simply considered as being a different take on the same matter, and allow some other uninvolved sysops take a considered view of the block and preceding events. Cheers LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, I have addressed other editors engaged in aggressive behavior - it's just that this particular one continued in his actions whereas the others toned it down. Regarding the removal of content, if you'll look over it (along with my accompanying explanation at his talk page), you'll notice that very little has to do with the actual AfD; it's mostly attacks upon other users. Of course, it's unreasonable to expect one admin to remove all of the nasty remarks from this AfD (even if it was appropriate to go on that kind of anti-incivility campaign, which it's not), but that one crossed the line. AfDs are not the place for taking shots at other editors or requesting de-adminships.

I agree wholeheartedly about what you've said concerning the emotions circling the AfD, which is exactly why I've spent time lately monitoring it to try and keep it cool. Thanks for taking some time to look over this. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I have been watching the VP drama unfold, and frankly I am growing weary of it. Does VP have some valid complaints about the behavior of others? Quite possibly yes. Does it excuse his bad behavior? Not at all. I have reviewed his earlier blocks, and have denied them in the past; they have seemed justified given his behavior. If others are being disruptive, their behavior should be dealt with as well; however VPs cries of unfairness are a red herring. He has deserved his blocks, and just because others may deserve them as well (and I only say that as a hypothetical; not as a fact), does not give him the right to act like a jerk. As I told him at an earlier unblock request. Behavior can trump rightness; if you want people to see your side and listen to you, it needs to be presented in a civil manner. Being disruptive will cause others to ignore you, and if he doesn't want that, he should act more civilly.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[129] She called edits 'canvassing' which those allegedly canvassed disagreed were such, both myself and User:Rray appreciated being alerted to an MfD of an article of User:VigilancePrime's which Tijuana herself nominated. Obviously whether the block is appropriate is a different matter but I think she shouldn't have done it herself as she's so involved in the issuues, if necessary (with which some people disagree) another, less involved admin should have done it. Merkinsmum 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avruch (talk • contribs)

Despite Tijuana's comments above, he (sorry I got your gender wrong before, T) said on VigilenceP's talkpage that the block was for canvassing on the MfD Tijuana started, not anything to do with the other issues.Merkinsmum 02:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries about the gender. Concerning the block, it was for canvassing as a part of continued disruptive behavior. Read it for yourself. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not an admin, regardless, I'd like to express my concern that the block of VigilancePrime may have been a tad oversized for the size of the problem. The purported canvassing messages appeared to have been neutrally done, and I'm not sure whether the block was entirely warranted as a strictly preventative measure. That's my concern, which I'd like addressed. However, I'll leave this to y'all to sort out. But, Tijuana Brass, didn't you disband a long time ago? Sorry, I couldn't resist making a Herb Alpert reference --SSBohio 03:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno; just from looking over his talk page, it seems that any admin who posts on his page is automatically a member of The Cabal. Which, of course, does not exist. Everyone knows there is no cabal. HalfShadow (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm all about HA references, baby. ...anyway, I hardly think language like "The MfD is believed to be a veiled personal attack" is neutral ([130]). Note that WP:CANVAS requires "notices" to be limited, neutral, nonpartisan, and open to be considered acceptable. He failed three of these and continued to canvass after a warning, which is problematic even if you don't consider the other issues of disruption. Oh, and HalfShadow, the first rule of the cabal is that you don't talk about the cabal. Loose lips sink ships. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a solid reason to me. In deference to VP, however, I have to admit that he says things I only wish I could say. Sometimes it's hard to see the non-existence of the cabal from this close to the ground.  :-) As to the HA reference, when I saw your name, I swear I could hear that horn section playing. Thanks for being responsive to me. I've been fobbed off by others and this is much better. --SSBohio 04:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice T. strangely doesn't mention his 'canvassing' reason at first while asking for a review of this block.

I imagine VP is a bit vociferous though, but on the deletion debate I was involved in about Adult-child sex, he didn't stand out as particularly vociferous, maybe that's not saying much on that AfD though lol. Merkinsmum 13:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's right there in the block log. Please make sure you actually review the situation before making accusations; you've already been mistaken twice. In any case, if you think the block was solely due to canvassing, you're missing the bigger picture - which is why this review was a request for the input of experienced admins who've dealt with problems like these before. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am away from home, sorry to join back in late. Some others may consider this resolved but to me it's partly not, due to the Tijuana rather than the Vigilance Prime issues (for my differing views on VP's canvassing anyone can message me direct, suffice it to say I disagree, but don't want to make my post even more looong lol) I know he is unblocked now but what I'm saying is in future, if you are involved partially in what you are blocking someone for (I know you weren't for the AfD of Adult-child sex)- but for instance you nominated an MfD and then blocked the person who wrote the article, partly over his conduct surrounding the MfD- could you please contact another admin to consider doing such a block or write on ANI asking for intervention about it? You see it would slightly remove the possibility (because we all have biases in life, some of them subconscious) or the possible appearance of an unfair block. I am writing this here on ANI rather than directly to you because I want other admins to be aware of editor's concerns, (but thought it would be unnecessary to start a separate thread, though I put one here in the first place) and to be aware that this suggestion has already been made to you, should such a situation arise again, that you block someone with whom you are currently engaged in an argument, whether over the same subject or not. As even over a different subject, (and no matter how evil other editor's comments) if you have another currently active dispute, to the editor concerned it could easily appear vindictive (even if that's not true.) Merkinsmum 13:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Having read Merkinsmum's statement above, I'm annulling my previous acceptance of this block. I now see where LessHeard vanU was concerned about the propriety of Tijuana Brass making the block, then withdrew the concern because TB wasn't involved in the AfD. However, Tijuana Brass also brought a page created by VigilancePrime up to MfD, and while that was pending, blocked VigilancePrime for "canvassing" with regard to that MfD. To me, there is an appearance of impropriety in the block, which, in light of all the facts, seems more punitive than preventative. I'm also concerned that the full circumstances surrounding this block hadn't been laid out here by the blocking admin. Again, it gives the appearence of impropriety. --SSBohio 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Points well made. The violations still merited a block, but I can see why others could interpret a potential conflict of interest due to my initiating the MfD (although, given that an XfD runs for five days, a 24 hour block will not affect the outcome). I'll be more aware of this in the future. Thanks to those who commented on this, I appreciate your input and advice. Tijuana Brass (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)