Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive130

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:Gene Nygaard pages moves 2 Bobblewik (talk · contribs) date delinking (again) 3 Harassment by Mais oui! 4 Admin help requested 5 Deuterium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 5.1 User:Deuterium again 6 User:Mike18xx: WP:Civility and WP:NOT a soapbox 7 User:Light current block review? 8 Dangerous user continues to censor and insert POV into articles 9 Proudzionist2347 is a sock puppet of Zonerocks 10 Slow motion Kleptomania edit war? 11 User Evading Indef Block 12 Appreciate some help - vandalism by User:The Prophecy 13 Problems with MEChA 14 Copyright concerns regarding Zelda imagery 15 Image:JohnMarkKarr.jpg 16 Legal threats regarding edits to Myron Wolf Child 17 User:Mana.ustad 18 Inshaneeee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19 Consumed Crustracean's RfA 20 User:Fotimus 21 Srebrenica massacre 22 Fishy checkuser request related to Romanian/Hungarian articles 23 Requesting help in reviewing a user's edits 24 Spreading neologisms 25 Margana 26 Taeguk Warrior 27 Ceula sockpuppet & spam 28 Another Zeq copyvio 29 CAT:CSD backlog 30 Altering a user's signature 31 User:Displaced Brit 32 Blocked for following policy, no discussion from the blocking admin 33 The Inquirer and User:Dionyseus 34 Universe Daily/Today/Bad Astronomy spam again 35 Special Craftsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 36 User:Danielpi 37 Image:RoyGrec.png and use on {{House of Oldenburg (Glucksburg-Greece)}} 38 User trying to impersonate me 39 Vandalism, AfD gaming: User:Michael Snow 40 Vandalism:User:ApolloBoy 41 Abuse of admin powers 42 User Jayjg 43 Copyright violations by User:Galassi 43.1 User:Torban 44 Inappropriate block by Tyrenius 45 Concerted, coordinated vandalism effort on front page 46 User:Philwelch 47 Inshanee - Harassment by Admin 47.1 Please may Sarastro777 be banned for one month from trolling this board? 48 Yet Another Ray Lopez Outbreak 49 in re: article on Melissa Farley 50 Airport-related user names. 51 argh 52 Open proxy ? 53 rf block review / normal process, not few-admins' decision labelled as "community block" 54 "grapheus" is back 55 TJReturns 56 User:PhoenixPinion 57 Review of block requested 58 I'm unblocking User:Panairjdde 59 Perceived personal attacks by MONGO toward me. 59.1 RPA is a bad idea, and NPA is a bad idea, too 59.2 MONGOs threat to block me 59.3 For the record... 60 RubberJoshy 61 Bad Faith assumed 62 Linkspam from User:Knowledge for All 63 Christine Jennings "slander" 64 Edit comment on Windows Mobile page history 65 open proxies 66 Long AfD 67 User:Mikedk9109 68 Quasar 69 Residual effects in CAT:Speedy from vandalism to Template:USPoliticalDivisions 70 PoolGuy sockpuppet 71 apparent 'vandalism only' account 72 I.M. Rich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 73 Blocked for following policy, no discussion from the blocking admin 74 Deleting and protecting from re-creation 75 Melbourne High School 76 203.10.224.59 (talk · contribs) 77 User 12.156.158.79 78 User:WikiWoo 79 User:PresidentClinton 80 Semi-Protect Body Count 81 Mass of redirects on August 10, 2006 alleged transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot 82 User:Dposse and Snakes on a Plane 83 Date warring 84 CFD vs. DRV: action review requested 85 An suspicious annoymous user editting the "Entropia Universe" article. 86 User:Mike18xx Again 87 Obvious stalking and harassment 88 Jerkcity (talk · contribs) 89 Poll threatens to violate "use common names" 90 User:Moby Dick is back on his harrasment parole 91 Fair use violation on {{Infobox Australia}} 92 User:Mattisse 92.1 Strenuous Protest 93 User:Thomist 94 Blocked? and I don't even know how to edit. 95 Range blocks on Charter et al. by Jayjg vs. Zephram Stark 96 User:Eagle 101/WikiVoter 97 Joke RFA, please investigate 98 Jmac1811 99 Persistent Vandalism on Hipcrime (Usenet) 100 Yavari Govain (talk · contribs) 101 User:Homophobic fag 102 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot 103 User Andykentisi and various Celtic connection theories 104 User Yankees76 105 User:Zmanm407 106 MascotGuy's lost cousin? 107 User:71.228.10.185 - repeated abuse, personal attacks, and threats of future vandalism 108 Sinagogue of Satan 109 user:KDRGibby 110 Concerning Wiarthurhu - community block? 111 IG Farben Building 112 AOL proxy pool 113 User:Jigsaw12 114 User blanking userpage and political talk pages

[edit] User:Gene Nygaard pages moves

Hi, this user is moving pages with diacritics to versions without them only because there was no redirect from the unaccented version (e.g.). He refuses to make simple redirects because it does not teach the involved editors to make redirects. Three users protested his actions, but he is still insisting on his own way. See related talk section. I have no time or will to babysit him and revert the moves. Please do something about it. Thank you. Renata 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Nygaard seems to be on the edge (or beyond) of WP:POINT, but well-intentioned. Perhaps if a few admins weighed in we could channel his desire to help more effectively. Martinp 01:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have restored this comment to the noticeboard as this editor has continued moving pages despite eight editors asking him to stop or reverting his edits - a clear action against consensus.

Just one example: Rétság was moved to Retsag today. Now, for no encyclopaedic reason, it is the single Hungarian place in its category without the correct diacritics, and all the internal links point to a redirect. This is not a good thing.

Gene claims on his talk page that he moves the pages (rather than creating the necessary redirect) to make a point to the original page creator that they should have created a diacriticless redirect earlier. As mentioned by Martinp, this breaches WP:POINT; this editor should not be working against consensus, disturbing consistent naming schemes and creating needless redirect, RFM and page move work for other editors in order to attract attention to a cause.

Administrator help for the clear-up would be much appreciated, too. Aquilina 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would add that he does not seem to look for a compromise. Renata 16:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Something should be done about this. —freak(talk) 17:01, Aug. 14, 2006 (UTC)

If we can collide him with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (who did a huge number of disruptive pagemoves in sort of the opposite direction recently) would there be a matter-antimatter explosion? Phr (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted Gene's latest moves. He does seem to be doing more harm than good, despite having a perfectly valid point about unaccented redirects. — sjorford++ 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his user page. If he continues I think a 1 hour block would make sense (I don't want to block for longer because this is minor and Gene is a generally good contributor). JoshuaZ 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message on his talk page as well. Regardless of his motives - and I believe, from long experience, Gene has the best interests of the project at heart - this is not the way to go about things, and only inflames people. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue of non-English-alphabet names needs to have a clear policy -- something to be decided from above. I have made it my rule so far to create articles with the native name, creating redirects for all the Anglicized versions. I agree that Gene's policy of anglicizing article names (without that being a clear WP policy) does more harm than good -- Palthrow 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a big issue, I thought we have guidelines (see the RAN incident) that we name the article with the most common English spelling, e.g. John von Neumann instead of Neumann János. But in the cases where the name isn't commonly used in English, we use the native spelling. Phr (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So, according to the very valid points you are making--no determination has yet been made as to the proper English Wikipedia title in the articles I am moving. Therefore, no one has any real grounds for complaint against my moves. The unaccented form has not yet been considered by anyone. If you disagree with my choice as to the particular title, you can discuss it on that articles talk page. Or, you can even revert me--but at least we don't end up with the totally unacceptable position which prevailed before. If you do revert me, the redirect will remain. That means that someone who sees some word or name of a person or place in an English language newspaper or magazine story will now at least have a reasonable chance to find the Wikipedia article on the subject, if one exists. That wasn't the case before.

Sure, in many cases it really doesn't matter all that much which of the various spellings and forms appears in the article title, as long as you can find the article by slapping on the squigglies after I have moved it to the English form, or whatever. What is totally unacceptable is not to have a search for the English alphabet version work. Gene Nygaard 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of other things to consider:

1. After my moves, all links from forms with accents still work and still get you to the proper article.
2. After my moves, entering the accented form into the "Go" box still works.
3. After my moves, many former redlinks are now blue, and take you to the correct article.
4. After my moves, entering the English alphabet form in the "Go" box works as well, something that wasn't true before.

Actually, there are almost no places where you will even notice that the article has been moved, when it comes to finding information in Wikipedia.

Furthermore, many of these articles are accompanied by another problem--not being indexed properly in the categories. It isn't a one-to-one correspondence; some of those missing any connection the the English alphabet form have already been indexed properly (and in most cases, appear as they should in the same place in the list whether the accents are included in the article title or not), and some with the article title in an unaccented version have improper use of diacritics in the indexing sort keys. But quite often the two problems go hand in hand. Gene Nygaard 02:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Al those things you mention in the numbered bullets would be correct if you made a simple redirect! And for the record, Gene moved 2 more pages after posting here. Renata 11:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with redirects is that they are invisible.

One of the major problems with that is that you miss out on the knowledge of those people who know when a letter is often transliterated as two letters rather than one (dj, dz, aa, ou, etc.), and can thus also create redirects from the other spellings as well. If their attention isn't called to the problem, because we only made an invisible semi-fix to one particular article, then that is missed. One of the problems, of course, is that a single character can be transliterated differently in different languages, so there is not any one size fits all solution, even if I were to bother even trying to learn all those silly rules for each of the thousands of possible characters. Gene Nygaard 12:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ten people have told you to stop.

• A redirect does not move a page to a name inconsistent with all the other related articles in its category, unlike your moves.
• A redirect does not need WP:RM and an admin to undo, unlike some of your moves.
• A redirect does not require a team of editors to waste their time reverting your contributions needlessly, unlike your moves.
• A redirect does not move the page does not move the page to an arbitrary transliteration like your moves do - you even admit you don't fully understand transliteration schemes above.
• A redirect does not cause multiple double redirects which you don't bothered to fix, unlike your moves.

Gene, these are just a few of the reasons people have told you to stop. If you want to highlight something to editors, put a reminder on their user talk pages, or bring it up on the community policy talk pages: do not abuse page moves. You have carried on moving pages unnecessarily [1], [2] despite multiple warnings, and you have clearly declared your intent to carry on ("I shall continue to express my choice in my way" - [3]). This wasting of other contributors' time to prove a point should not continue. Aquilina 17:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Gene, how many other people need to tell you to stop? Or do we need to get in the business of blocks and RfCs? No one wants that, everyone thinks your intentions are well, but please stop. Renata 17:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So, try this. Put "Taniko" in the box on your Wikipedia page. Then click on either "Go" or "Search". Do you find an article dealing with a weaving technique? As I write this, you won't.

Now figure out some other way to find the article dealing with that weaving technique. Then show me by example how your method works, what you'd do to fix the problem. Show me whose talk page you'd go to, and what you'd say, and let me know how well it works.

Or are you just interested in being a pest and disrupting things? Gene Nygaard 00:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It was easy to fix. Taniko is now a redirect to Tāniko. What's wrong with that? —ptk✰fgs 07:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters

1. It had no effect whatsoever on the fact that Ngai Tai remains a redlink, whereas if you had called it to the attention of someone who had actually edited the Tāniko article, they might have taken the hint and fixed others as well. But no one with Tāniko on their watchlists will even know that you had made any change related to it.
2. You failed to fix it so that Tāniko is indexed correctly in its categories. Gene Nygaard 11:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say that I fully support using only standard ASCII characters in article titles. Using non-standard characters makes finding articles and editing them very annoying. Gene Nygaard should be commended for his effort.  Grue  07:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tu put it short: I do not agree with Gene for the simple reason that if nobody makes a redirect we have a wrong article title and the reader does not know that (he cannot know whether the title is an alternative name, the correct spelling, the wrong spelling etc.). Therefore I am strictly against any such titles and I have seen no rule saying that we should have wrong article titles. Juro 02:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

They are most definitely not "wrong" article titles. You might argue that one is better than the other for the one slot we have available for the actual title, but redirects mean that we can find it under any of the "correct" possibilities--as long as they exist, of course. The problem is, these redirects often do not exist. Gene Nygaard 21:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Gene, that is exactly what we are arguing. You seem to be saying that it doesn't matter at all where the article is, as long as all appropriate redirects point to it. Your aim of making sure all possible redirects exist - which, I stress again, is an aim I agree with 100% - is one that can be achieved without moving these articles from their established titles. I ask you one last time, please stop these disruptive and pointless moves. — sjorford++ 08:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me highlight the problems as clearly as possible. Looking at Category:Towns in Turkey, it is clear that to find or refer to any Turkish town, I should use the name with diacritcs, as this is the form that has been used by the editors of all these 74 pages. Except this isn't true any more; Güzelçamlı and Çatalsu weren't after your spree last night.

Is there any encyclopaedic reason for this, or perhaps a reason stemming from principal usage? No. It's completely arbitrary, and purely down to the stubborness of one editor who freely admits he doesn't fully understand the principles of transliteration in these languages. An editor, in fact, who doesn't sort out the dozens of double redirects he creates to these pages by moving them, but who justifies himself by complaining about double redirects. One who says the article title hasn't been considered, but does not take into account the considerations of the article creator, all subsequent editors, and the consideration given to the naming within the group of articles as a whole.

Gene, looking through your contribs you're not even implementing the current conventions correctly:

• we don't move articles to the "English name" just because one exists (see Takuu) - we move it there if that "English name" is the predominant usage. Hence Moscow but not Marseilles or Saragossa.
• we don't strip people of diacritics just because they are American; you do so if they are American and their name is predominantly used without them: my esteemed friend Mr Müller didn't have to relinquish his umlaut to obtain an American passport, and neither did his children who were born there, and their u's remain adorned to this day.
• we don't move articles if they index peculiarly - we fix the indexing with the tag. If editor education is your main aim, as claimed, why revert 30-odd edits by User:Ionius Mundus last night for this reason and not even bother to discuss it with him on his talk page?

There is no current canon yet on whether we use a restricted character set for titles. If you want to change naming conventions, change it at the policy level through the proper channels and not through isolated, inconsistent, incomplete and disruptive page moves. At least at the moment we have consistency within related article groups. It is not worth losing this when we can achieve largely the same result a less disruptive fashion. Fix the index tags like you normally do, create the diacriticless redir, fix the double redirects and if you really want, leave a note on the article creator's talk to politely remind them to create the redir themselves in future. Make a template to do so if you wish.

You have made ~100 such edits. All have been reverted. This usually shows you're doing something people think you shouldn't.

Doing so even when repeatedly requested not to by numerous editors, administrators, and a member of ArbCom is disrupting the encyclopaedia. Aquilina 12:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I had this Gene appear out of nowhere like a bear with a sore head making threats to revert moves made to Polynesian mythology articles because the macronised vowels in those names upset the categorization which it seems in his book is more important than accuracy. He said that if he had to do it he would do it the easy way, ie, revert the moves. Why could he not have approached me civilly and pointed out the deficiencies in my use of category sort codes (of which I knew nothing) nicely? OK, I learned, but he made me angry for no good reason. Then he shifted Takuu, (an article about an atoll in Papua New Guinea I was heavily involved in writing) to Mortlock Islands because apparently 'if there is an English name we should use it.' That was uncalled for and annoying because 'Mortlock Islands' is little used in this part of the world to refer to Takuu, and because there is actually another group of islands called 'Mortlock Islands' in the Federated States of Micronesia. It was like he looked up my contributions and decided to mess with Takuu just because I added diacritics to some article names. I feel annoyed because I have done a lot of work to begin cleaning up a huge mess in the Polynesian articles, and I get treated like a vandal by this rude Gene. Editing to make a point is not kosher is it? Another thing that he may not be aware of, is that English comes in many flavours, and in the New Zealand flavour, accepted spelling of Māori words often INCLUDES THE DIACRITICS. Coincidentally (or not), at the same time as Gene was threatening the reverts, an anonymous person with the IP 66.97.252.168 added sort codes on two categories on the Māori Wikipedia Kahuroa 12:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't change the indexing, even if it is "often" though certainly not universal in New Zealand it still is indexed with a rather than according to Unicode numbers. Even in mi:Category:Ngā tāone o Aotearoa you should be fixing the indexing so that ā doesn't come after "b", let alone after "z" as it usually does now--but that doesn't mean I'll bother getting a user name there, even if I do help out a bit. That also includes indexing of categories in their supercategories. I'll give you a little more time before following up on your moves here on English Wikipedia and fixing any you might have missed. After you finish that, maybe you'd be interested in fixing those such as the Ngai Tai mentioned above which remains a redlink as of this posting, even though more than two days without any of the supposedly concerned people following this thread taking the hint. Gene Nygaard 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the Maori Wikipedia puts Maori accent marks in its spelling of Europe (mi:Ūropi). There's nothing unique about English articles being in the English alphabet spelling. And mi:Tiamana, fr:Allemagne, nn:Tyskland, de:Deutschland, and en:Germany are all articles about the very same place. Gene Nygaard 14:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Does your "esteemed friend Mr Müller" have a Wikipedia article in need of attention? Where will I find him in the Social Security Death Index when he dies? Have you actually seen any of his children's report cards from school? What does his driver's license say? What does the court docket say if he is stopped for speeding or arrested for something else, or the newspaper in its report of that? In some of such cases, usage with accents can probably be established; but in most cases, all that justifies is a redirect from the accented form. The burden is on those trying to establish that fact, especially with regard to the article name rather than just a redirect, whereas I was obviously dealing with cases where it had never been considered since there wasn't even a redirect or disambiguation page link. Gene Nygaard 14:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Aquilina, if you fix categories such as Category:Districts of Kırşehir so that they are sorted properly, then I won't find so many articles ripe for a move. Note that this isn't an easy task; it is complicated by nasty templates adding the categories in a way not visible on the edit page. Gene Nygaard 15:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This editor seems to be working against consensus, although he may have some folk in support of the naming question, the consensus seems clear that he should not be doing what he is doing the way he is doing it. Arguing the points of what is right or wrong about naming is out of place on this, the Administrator's Notice board, and ought to be taken elsewhere.

The only relevant question here is, are the actions of this editor disrupting the encyclopedia, and if so, what should be done about it? The answers seem clear to me, they are disruptive, and if he will not agree to stop doing them until consensus is clear, and then agree to abide by consensus whether he agrees or not (these are our norms, after all), he should be blocked. Gene Nygaard, Bobblewik, SPUI... these seem of a class... acting in good faith and with good intentions, up to a point, but unwilling to abide by consensus, and insistent on editing to enforce their view in the face of strong opposition. That's just not collegial. Therefore I think a block is in order here. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobblewik (talk · contribs) date delinking (again)

I have temporarily blocked Bobblewik because he has returned to rapid en-masse date delinking of articles, just 8 minutes after his last one month block expired. He is also doing other less controversial MoS style edits, but the date delinking ones are accompanied by the less than descriptive edit summary of "links". I bring this here for review. Bobblewik has been repeatedly blocked for continual delinking of dates. Despite extensive past discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), he is well aware that there is no widespread consensus for these edits. From past discussion here, on his talk page and his block history, he is well aware that these edits are extremely controversial and disruptive. I think this is an editor who is clearly not prepared to stop these disruptive edits and is on the brink of expending the patience of the community completely. I think it is time to consider a community imposed ban. Thoughts everyone, thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd support either an indef block or if consensus fails that, a new, longer block than last time, as there's no evidence of any desire to work within the concerns that others have raised. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems rather minor a problem for an indefinite community ban. Has anyone thought of bringing an ArbComm case? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Rebecca thought about it [4] but blocking has proved more popular [5]. Thincat 15:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a lot of people object to Bobblewik's year delinking, and a lot of other people support it. The MOS says "There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text". At one stage there was a suggestion that one should not edit articles specifically to remove date links. It looks to be that today Bobblewik has been finding articles with units to tidy up and then delinking years when he saw them too. This obviously has not placated the opponents! Personally I support delinking but I wish BW wouldn't do it because it gets some people so upset. Can't his tremendous number of valuable edits allow room for a bit of leeway? Thincat 14:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. If he stops doing what he's doing nobody will bother him. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Could the discussion of this be moved to User talk:Bobblewik so he can respond ? He feels that the block was unjustified given that he was operating within the restrictions imposed on him. Megapixie 15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of unblocking him provisionally on that he will not touch dates and he'll come here to discuss this. This is not an unblock I have a stake in -- if in the judgement of anyone this is not kosher or he does something to abuse that trust, I won't be offended if you undo my action. Please see here for my reasoning. --Improv 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem with the unblock - see below, just my slow typing speed (why was there no edit conflict ???) --Cactus.man ✍ 16:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion needs to be held here for maximum community exposure. This is a recurring pattern of editing from Bobblewik. You make reference to "restrictions imposed on him", but from what I see, that was some informal comment by some editors regarding the speed of his edits (and whether or not he is running an unauthorised bot), not some officially community sanctioned imposition. Those comments also made reference to the "necessity of leaving more descriptive edit summaries or talk page messages on your delinkings (with reasonings on why you removed a particular link) and throttl[ing] the number of such edits down to something below 6 in a minute". Editing speed has certainly been reduced, but the use of descriptive edit summaries and talk page summaries have clearly not been improved.

The problem is that even at his newly reduced editing speed there is clearly no scope for full consideration of the relevance of any date links to the context of the article he edits; THAT is where I believe the majority of opposition to these edits has stemmed from. I agree that many articles are overly date linked, but context is everything and many date links can be considered relevant. Bobblewik's latest bout of editing just removed all linked dates when encountered, at a speed that clearly would not allow sufficient examination of the context in which each date was linked. There is wide disagreement on this issue between editors and no clear consensus that these edits are acceptable. Bobblewik has been asked by numerous people, including Jimbo apparently, to stop this. After expiry of each and every block what happens? Boblewik returns and starts delinking dates, and I repeat en-masse because that's what is happening. Articles edited today with a non preference linked date were changed at at around 2 per minute initially. All linked dates were changed - blam, onto the next one - that is en-masse date delinking without consideration of the context in relation to the article.

I agree with Sam that a community ban is probably too hasty, but this recurring pattern is definitely disruptive - perhaps ArbCom is the correct way forward. This needs to be resolved one way or another. In response to Megapixie, I am prepared to unblock Bobblewik to allow him to respond here, provided he gives an undertaking not to delink dates while this discussion is ongoing. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Bobblewik could be a good contributor, and the delinking of dates is justified in some circumstances. I think we need more input from the community on what to do with this user; I'd mentor him if anyone approves of this idea. --TheM62Manchester 17:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that date delinking is often justifiable but the problem is Bobblewik's rapid "carpet bombing" method of doing so. I think some form of mentorship might have some merit as you suggest M62. We await some input from Bobblewik, now that he's unblocked. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing the block. The problem is that square brackets are used for two independent functions:

• 1. Hyperlinks
• 2. Date preference

Many editors say that they thought that *all* date components must be within square brackets. It is clear that much of the excessive linking is by well-meaning editors that misunderstood the issue and/or just followed others.

Furthermore, the implementation mechanism is so complicated that we get things like [[November 12th]], [[November 15|15 Nov]] which prevent the preference mechanism working. In some cases, we get plausible errors that make the text difficult to read with preferences. For example, even experienced editors believe that [[November 12]]-[[November 15|15]] look fine, but it actually parses to the unacceptable form: 12 November-15. These could be solved on their own (a few editors, including myself have solved many) but they are merely symptoms of the problem.

Even if I never delinked another date, the desire to resolve this problem will not disappear. Around 70 to 80 % of editors that voted in a limited poll thought that action should be taken. There are many editors willing to take action. The question is, what? bobblewik

Bobblewik, you have potential - anyhow, I've got a solution, leave a message on my talk page for details... --TheM62Manchester 17:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this will all be moot once Wikipedia:Date Debate is resolved? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-16 17:28Z

It will be easier: problem is newer editors think that all years should be linked (because that's what they see), link lots of years, and propagate the myth. Until this cycle is broken, the problem won't go away. Rich Farmbrough 07:08 17 August 2006 (GMT).

Can I have a definition of 'en-masse' please? bobblewik 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, from my earlier post above:

The problem is that even at his newly reduced editing speed there is clearly no scope for full consideration of the relevance of any date links to the context of the article he edits; THAT is where I believe the majority of opposition to these edits has stemmed from. I agree that many articles are overly date linked, but context is everything and many date links can be considered relevant. Bobblewik's latest bout of editing just removed all linked dates when encountered, at a speed that clearly would not allow sufficient examination of the context in which each date was linked. There is wide disagreement on this issue between editors and no clear consensus that these edits are acceptable. Bobblewik has been asked by numerous people, including Jimbo apparently, to stop this. After expiry of each and every block what happens? Boblewik returns and starts delinking dates, and I repeat en-masse because that's what is happening. Articles edited today with a non preference linked date were changed at at around 2 per minute initially. All linked dates were changed - blam, onto the next one - that is en-masse date delinking without consideration of the context in relation to the article.

--Cactus.man ✍ 10:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Bobblewik's behaviour is disturbing; I advise all the interested parties to take this case to the ArbCom. I don't see another effective way to solve the issue. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cactus.man, I read that text before but I still don't understand. It describes a speed complaint, not a complaint about number of edits. Is 'en-masse' being used here as a synonym for 'fast'? bobblewik 11:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Bobblewik, thanks, but this is nothing to do with your speed of edits. I acknowledged that you have reduced them in line with other editor's concerns. With regards to en masse (my apologies for introducing a non existent hyphen) please consult your dictionary, thesaurus or other online resources for the meaning. En masse - all together, in one group or body, as one, as a whole ... etc. That is what you have been doing with your repeatedly contested edits. Every individually linked date or century link has been delinked by your edits, en masse, without reference to the relevance in relation to the context of the article. The speed issue relates only to your capability to properly assess the relevance of each link. Please continue discussion of this in the relevant forums but, until there is consensus for your date linking edits, please stop. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha. You use 'en masse' to mean multiple edits *within* an article. I understand you now, thanks.

You are mistaken about relevance, I do take it into account.

I see that there is indeed a new discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and User talk:Tyrenius. See you there. bobblewik 14:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment by Mais oui!

I would like Mais oui! to be blocked. He regularly makes sock puppet accusations against me and persistently makes disruptive POV edits to practically all of my contributions. He admits that he is keeping watch on me. I am growing increasingly weary of having to fight a constant rearguard action against his unconstructive POV changes. If he continues, I am going to have to give up contributing to Wikipedia. I am sure I am not alone in considering him a disruptive element, and it would be best for the Wikipedia project if he were blocked from editing it. Mallimak 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The pair of you should stop spamming people all over the place if you expect to earn any sympathy for your respective plights. People won't take you seriously while your approach is akin to stuffing pizza leaflets through their letterboxes. This page is not for dispute resolution, and doling out a block is rarely used to resolve a dispute, and irritating you is not nearly serious enough to earn an idefinite block (nor, likely, any block at all). You need to use dispute resolution properly. If you've tried RfC, which I expect you haven't seeing as my talk page didn't get spammed about one, then try one. If that fails, try Arbitration. Also, try being nice to one another and tolerating each other's foibles. -Splash - tk 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, this is a repeat posting of this:

• virtually identical entry made to WP:AN/I on 13 August - now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive128#Harassment_by_Mais_oui.21

Secondly, for background, you may wish to read these:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Orkney (on-going)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak (currently outstanding)

Thirdly, for a second opinion from Admins familiar with User:Mallimak, you may wish to consult:

• User:Wangi
• User:Alai

Fourthly, as User:Alai puts it:

" ... this is just abuse of the project space (to go with earlier abuse of the article space, the category space, and template space by the same user). The description of an edit that adds "The Orkney archipelago is a council area of Scotland." as "vandalism", and reverting it with summary "Mais oui! Why are you interfering here? Can t you just bugger off?" basically sums up the problem with Mallimak's behaviour: a determination to have his "own" content in some niche of wikipedia, regardless of encyclopaedic value, and independent of other editors' input. If this keeps up, an RFC would be indicated."

And fifthly: life is just too short. Frankly, I am "sick to the back teeth" of him, and would strongly prefer for Admins to deal with him, rather than me having to monitor his growing WP:POINT campaign. In summary: User:Mallimak has a very serious attitude problem, and is totally unwilling to even make an attempt to follow WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, among others. Thanks. --Mais oui! 01:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC) - Don't game the system! Mallimak 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to be drawn into the specific complaint raised by Mallimak. However, Mais oui! has also falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and now routinely reverts my edits simply because they are my edits, without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus. He is the only user against whom I have encountered these problems.

I have no view about the efficacy of formal steps against Mais oui!. He clearly makes a wide range of contributions, many of which are valued by others. He has a rather transparent agenda, namely to promote Scotland and other Celtic areas at the expense of balance, objectivity or context. I would suggests that an editor whom he trusts and respects encourage him to adopt a more collaborative, less confrontational approach and to discuss directly his objections and observations wih other contributors. Normalmouth 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For the background to that last comment, please see:

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Normalmouth

"... falsely accused..." - There is no proof of whether my allegation of sockpuppetry is "false" or true because CheckUser refuses to expose a Users IP address except in "extreme" circumstances, but the evidence clearly points to Normalmouth logging-out and using his IP address to vote in a Requested move discussion. And I am very sorry to say that Normalmouth has an extremely "transparent agenda": to do all he can to stain the reputation of Plaid Cymru. No other Wikipedia article on a UK political party is as one-sidedly negative as the PC article, and a large measure of the responsibility for that lies at the doorstep to Normalmouth.

I would like to record my complete agreement with the above comments by Mais oui!Rhion 06:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"... routinely reverts my edits simply because they are my edits... " - Not true at all. I routinely have to revert your edits because they are consistently, and heavily, POV.

I am very happy to confirm that I do contribute heavily to Scotland-related articles (as is my prerogative), and if that "promotes" Scotland I would be delighted (although slightly surprised). As for "Celtic countries": I could not give a hoot - I do not look at the world in that way. But I do do my very best to "promote" other countries I like, mainly Sweden, Norway, England, France, Italy, Canada, the US, Australia, Switzerland (actually, this list could get rather long... ). --Mais oui! 06:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Thirdly, for a second opinion from Admins familiar with User:Mallimak, you may wish to consult: User:Wangi" — I'm not an admin, just another editor trying to settle things down. Thanks/wangi 08:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note to admins: The above discussion is very revealing. User:Mais oui! would appear to have a tactic of indulging in edit wars and constantly attacking the contributions of users who don't agree with his POV, and of accusing them of sockpuppetry in order to undermine their credibility, obviously with the aim of getting them to give up contributing to Wikipedia. I wonder how many good contributors Wikipedia has lost as a result of Mais oui!'s tactics? He is bad news for Wikipedia and should be banned. Mallimak 09:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Both seem to be as bad (or at least almost as bad) as each other. However, Mais oui! certainly makes a number of valuable and constructive contributions, when he puts aside his own POV... I'm not as familiar with Mallimak, although his repeated spamming of this page over what appears to be a content dispute is not impressive. It might be an idea for both to talk to each other (and to whomever else might be interested) directly and to DISCUSS edits and changes before making them, in order to avoid future difficulties. That is the Wikipedia way, after all. Badgerpatrol 11:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the spamming, having seen User:Mais oui! do it, I thought it was "the Wikipedia way" to inform potential supporters for one's case - so now we can add "setting a bad example" to his list of sins! Mallimak 11:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's not always easy to know where to go in these kind of situations. Assuming that you have tried to communicate with each other (ALWAYS the first step) and still can't resolve the issue, then you might try here for a problem of this nature. Badgerpatrol 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that Mais_oui does indulge in edit warring, and attacking the contributions of other users. After I had nominated a Scottish template for deletion in favour of the British one- he responded by reverting all my recent edits with the comments- "rv English Nationalist" (see for example- [6]). Also any attempts to engage with the user and avoid edit wars is usually met with personal abuse- eg [7]. Astrotrain 13:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

He is difficult, he is aggressive, and he is a POV-pusher. By the same token, he does make very valuable contributions. I'm not taking sides in this particular issue, because it seems to me that neither are angels. But in general, I think many problems could be solved here simply by more communication and less unilateral action. Badgerpatrol 14:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Are User:Mais oui!'s contributions really so valuable that they make up for all the contributions lost to Wikipedia on account of his actions chasing other contributors away and putting others off bothering contributing? 81.158.163.232 15:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC) - (Now, look at that! I was away from the computer for a while and Wikipedia has automatically logged me off, so my IP address is given. Does that constitute sockpuppetry? Mallimak 15:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

An observation... I have noticed a series of less than helpful edits (removal of valid categories, switching Scottish to either Orcadian or British... you could call them disruptive) from a large number of IP accounts in the same range as Mallimak (talk · contribs)'s IP above:

• 81.156.60.96 (talk · contribs)
• 81.129.246.219 (talk · contribs)
• 81.156.57.207 (talk · contribs) (I left a comment on this IP's talk page)
• 81.155.33.133 (talk · contribs) (only made a talk page comment - cleary by Mallimak)
• 81.153.148.0 (talk · contribs)
• 81.156.56.25 (talk · contribs)
• 81.158.167.232 (talk · contribs)
• 81.158.163.17 (talk · contribs)
• 81.129.246.190 (talk · contribs)
• 81.158.163.17 (talk · contribs)
• 81.129.246.190 (talk · contribs)
• 81.129.246.185 (talk · contribs)
• 81.154.91.225 (talk · contribs)
• 81.156.57.224 (talk · contribs) (blanking WP:SFD entry)
• 81.158.162.234 (talk · contribs)
• 81.154.95.18 (talk · contribs)
• 81.156.57.185 (talk · contribs)

Clearly Mais oui! (talk · contribs) thinks these edits are being made from an IP account to get around associating them with Mallimak's account. Thanks/wangi 16:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Many of these IPs have been checkusered and are likely Mallimak. The question is do these IPs edit in a way that is abusive or to give the false impression of consensus, or is it plausible as Mallimak says that sometimes his computer logs out without him noticing. Of more concern are the two logged in accounts that are also likely Mallimak socks. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP accounts themself seem to be used for nonsense switching of nationality - there is the potential of avoiding 3RR with them, but I don't think it's been the case. On the other hand Mallimak, Gruelliebelkie (talk · contribs) and Orkadian (talk · contribs) have all taken part in the current Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Orkney MfD. Although to be honest it is possible they are three different people, in the same area / telephone exchange who all use BT for a broadband connection... Some of the comments in the MfD discussion are very similar. Thanks/wangi 16:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one continually getting logged out. It's not only plausible, it's a damn nuisance. I get logged out during any good-sized edit, and am saving more often because of it - clogging the edit history with nonsense versions. I'd dated it from approx Chris73's total Tiscali block a few weeks ago, but it it's affecting BT users as well, maybe I'm wrong... JackyR | Talk 16:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For long edits I work in a personal sandbox, saving as often as I need, then copy to the article when its done. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Will User:Mais oui!'s harrassment never stop? More sock puppet allegations: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney, and deletion of an entry on the Wikipedia:Orcadian Wikipedians' notice board, which he labelled as "bogus" - obviously, on reading it, it was not his POV. Can nobody rid us of this bogus Wikipedian? Mallimak 23:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin help requested

I have found myself in dispute with User:Travb concerning the article Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America. I had initiated an AfD for this article and result was keep by no consensus. Since the AfD I have tried to clean up the article a bit and perhaps I am not always diplomatic in this endeavour or maybe I shouldn't have after the AfD. However, my edits are in good faith. Travb B has, however, even during the AfD, hounded me with baseless accusations and implied I behave like a vandal. He streeses I should not be deleting sections that I believe are not appropriate because I don't add anything. This is contrary to policy, I should not be required to add to an article in order to delete inappropraite sections. Also, by looking at his edits here, here, here and here (note edit summary I see a pattern of accusing me of vandalism and not acting in good faith because I "lost" the AfD. As someone who has always had the best of WP in mind I resent these accusations which almost make me want to quit the project over it. See also the talk sections on the article here, here and here and finally here where there is apparently a tabulation of words I added and deleted.

I would highly appreciate an outside admin looking into this.

I apologize for the length of this post. Thank you, Kalsermar 01:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have also been accused of vandalism for deleting original and poorly researched material from the article. The article suffers from lots of POV-advocacy, and needs to be pared frequently to keep it within Wikipedia policy. I recommend that the article be kept in a protected mode until people can educate themselves about WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:Verify. Morton devonshire 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kalsermar has deleted 1,857 words, and added 3 words to this article, please see my temporary page User:Travb/Deletions. This page lists every single edit of User:Kalsermar since he began posting to this page. He has deleted several very well referenced sections, see User:Travb/Deletions. As I stated on User:Kalsermar page, stating wikipedia policy: about vandalism: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. User:Kalsermar, who lost the AfD, now is attempting to delete the entire article, section by section. A ratio of 3:1,857 words deleted, especially just days after User:Kalsermar lost an AfD, makes me question his alleged "good faith" efforts. I have removed my accusation of stating that User:Kalsermar are bording on vandalism. I have requested that this page be protected.[8] I have attempted to change the name of the article to a less controversial one, and have actively attempted to define terrorism on the talk page to stop revert wars. Travb (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for strengthening my case Travb. Since when is it appropriate to keep tabs on how many words an editor adds or deletes? Seems like stalking to me. And again, how does one loose an AfD?--Kalsermar 02:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. "I expect the implication of [stalking] on my part to be removed from this message forthwith or I will take this further." (your words) I am simply showing the reason why I am requesting this page to be protected. You did not mention that I apologized in the AfD for stating that you are not assuming good faith, said I was wrong, and struck the words out.[9] Travb (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't clear what admin action is needed. This sounds more like something that should go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics or perhaps Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Jkelly 02:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not overly familiar with dispute resolution protocols and where to go with that or how to initiate it. The help I was seeking is in how to deal with the accusations against me. My request has not to do with content dispute.--Kalsermar 02:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Jkelly. I will post something on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics I have considered a third party neutral mediator, I will request one now. Can you protect the page Jkelly? Travb (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If everyone would get away from the keyboard for a while much of this would work out. It's not the end of the world if the "wrong version" is up for a day or two. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is not the content dispute I seek to resolve rather the accusations against me wich on my talk page are now being deleted by Travb. Either way, I won't be back till tomorrow afternoon anyways so I'll see what happens in the meantime.--Kalsermar 02:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

> I apologize for accusing you of your edits of "bordering on vandalism". I deleted those words,[10] and stated I did so here.

> What are you implying here? : accusations against me wich on my talk page are now being deleted by Travb As mentioned, I also apologized about 10 days ago for accusing you of not having "good faith". I was wrong. I am sorry. I would appreciate you striking out that I am "stalking" you, and apologize to me.

> The three edits which User:Kalsermar siteshere, here, here are all posted on User:Kalsermar wikipage, and the information which has offended User:Kalsermar has been removed.

> The other edit did not accuse User:Kalsermar of anything[11], and in this edit I accidently deleted a large section which User:Kalsermar has deleted himself. In trying to restore User:Kalsermar deletions, I made a mistake, which was quickly changed by another user.

> I find it ironic that User:Kalsermar is pointing out my accidental deletion "note edit summary" when he has deleted a ratio of 3:1,857 words, and started the AfD without ever contributing a single word to the article. My accidental mistake in no way lessens User:Kalsermar guilt or innocent, they are mutually exclusive actions, under Tu quoque logic. If this "is not the content dispute" as User:Kalsermar states, why would he bring up my accidental deletions stating: "note edit summary"? User:Kalsermar can't have it both ways: it is either a content dispute or it is not.

> User:Kalsermar wants this not to be a content dispute because what led me to say those things, is because the "content dispute" involves User:Kalsermar's behavior, with a ratio of 3:1,857 word deletions, paints him in a bad light. This argument is about a content dispute, and began because of a content dispute. I don't understand how User:Kalsermar is able to seperate the two, especially when he himself mentions my accidental deletion: "note edit summary".

> The talk page links here, here and here that User:Kalsermar links to are statments I have stated here, to my knowledge I do not accuse User:Kalsermar of anything anywhere else, if I have, I will remove those comments, and apologize.

> I need to apologize one more time though, I was wrong, User:Kalsermar has contributed 3 words to this article, not zero. I will change this right now. Sorry User:Kalsermar, my mistake. (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I will state this once more, I am not required to add anything to an article in order to be justified in removing sections I believe are not supposed to be in the article for whatever reason. If I delete a million words without adding a single one I am still contributing to the article. Can you even understand that. I have explained my reasoning for the deletion of the sections involved and they have been reverted without any substantial refuting of my arguments. I have not, in doing so, accused you of vandalism or destructive behaviour. You on the other hand continually do so against anyone who does not conform to your POV. I struck out the stalking comment and I apologize for assuming bad faith in your behavioural pattern. I will not, however, let accusations of vandalism or destructive behaviour on my part stand and I again request an admin's help in this matter.--Kalsermar 18:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

>User:Kalsermar wrote: I will state this once more, I am not required to add anything to an article in order to be justified in removing sections I believe are not supposed to be in the article for whatever reason. If I delete a million words without adding a single one I am still contributing to the article. Can you even understand that. I have explained my reasoning for the deletion of the sections involved and they have been reverted without any substantial refuting of my arguments Wait, didn't you just say yesterday, "Again, it is not the content dispute I seek to resolve rather the accusations against me wich on my talk page are now being deleted by Travb." I thought this had nothing to do with the content dispute?

>I will state this once more, I am not required to defend referenced material in the article in order to be justified in keeping the sections I believe are supposed to be in the article, when you support no referenced material on why this should be deleted and contribute nothing to the article. If I add a million referenced words which met WP:V and the other rules, and you come along and delete all of them, this is not contibuting to the article. I have explained my reasoning for the sections to remain and they have still been deleted without any substantial refuting of my arguments. I have not, in doing so, accused you of wikistalking. You on the other hand continually do so against anyone who does not conform to your POV. I struck out the vandalism comment and I apologize for assuming bad faith in your behavioural pattern. I will not, however, let accusations of stalking on my part stand and I again request an admin's help in this matter.

>It goes both ways User:Kalsermar it is obvious your 3 words and your 1,857 words deleted is not any signifigant contribution. If you can't see this, then we will have to let others decide this in arbitration. Since you are too stubborn to respect the decision of the AfD, which was no consensus, which by default means keep, and you continue to delete large sections, I will be forced to start a RfC, followed by arbitration. The entire two months this is going on, the article will be protected. All of those words you want to delete will stay on wikipedia. Then, the arbitors will punish any large deletion of referenced material by booting you, for one day up to a month. So: you have a choice. Stop deleting content that does not match you POV, try to reach a consensus on the talk page, or the page remains protected for months, and then you get booted when you start deleting large portions of referenced, verifiable material. I already know the conclusion to this, I have seen the same behavior a million times before. I wish you would surprise me but there appears to be no comprimising with you. Travb (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Again my dear Travb, you are strengthening my case. Just look at your diatribes, and o, of course you know how it will end. I suggest strongly you shut up addressing me before I will say something nasty.--Kalsermar 00:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• My tentative investigation of this matter (as a neutral third-party at the suggestion of Kalsermar) suggests that -- as one might expect -- some of the content-removal by Kalsermar was clearly justified, and some was questionable. The correct course here is for neither editor to alter the article at this point without seeking talk-page consensus, a measure enforced for the moment by protection. It is important to note that, as Kalsermar says, content-removal is oftentimes a positive contribution to an article, deleting bias and increasing focus. The ratio of "words deleted vs. words added" is irrelevant: the merits of the edits are the only question that matters. Xoloz 01:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deuterium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has altered User:Robdurbar's 3RR report edit and reverted to his altered version now five times.

• rv1
• rv2
• rv3
• rv4
• rv5

I warned this editor that he was nearing violation of WP:3RR but he continued to revert (and subsequently removed my warning).

Another pair of eyes would be useful here towards preventative ends.

Thanks. (→Netscott) 03:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The "altering" is simply removing the tag, as I do not believe the incident was correctly tagged. The 3RR was not correctly dealt with as anyone can see from actually looking at the reverts in question. There are 5 reverts in a 24 hour period! How can that not be a violation? There is no rule that a random admin's decision is binding, and anyway I will just relist if it is deleted. Deuterium 03:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR states that one can make no more than three reversions on the same article in a 24 hour period, so your 5 reversions clearly constitutes a violation.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that Deuterium (talk · contribs) was not aware of the type of vandalism referred to as, "Changing people's comments" when he altered User:Robdurbar's original comment. (→Netscott) 03:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't alter his comment, you're lying. I changed the tag of the incident because it was incorrectly tagged. Deuterium 03:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It was not incorrectly tagged since you did indeed violate the 3RR, so it was inappropriate for you to remove it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

Yes User:Deuterium is way over the 3RR limit. Now he's removing my own commentary. Could someone please wield the cluebat with this editor? Thanks. (→Netscott) 06:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This user, even in other contexts, knee-jerk blanket-reverts, rolling back spelling and grammar fixes. Nysin 07:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

N and D are both being mind-bogglingly silly about this. I'm blocking both for 12h for edit-warring on the 3RR page. Don't do it William M. Connolley 07:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That has to be the stupidest place to get into a revert war. (Like using a sockpuppet to complain on a checkuser page) :-/ Thatcher131 (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was a bit silly. User:Deuterium kept reverting a report marked as "No block" to read as though the report hadn't been reviewed (obviously in hopes that an inexperienced adminstrator would falsely block me.) My edits (they were not reversion) were to prevent that from occurring. Well today Deuterium (talk · contribs) is back to his old tricks of trying to get me blocked under false pretenses by again filing the same report. I honestly wish someone would take some action here... this has gone much beyond ridiculousness with this editor. (→Netscott) 23:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is just nuts. There's now been two admins who've seen User:Robdurbar's (Result: No block) tag and reverted it: User:William M. Connolley, and User:PinchasC but Deuterium still reverts it. Seriously this person needs to be blocked for Disruption a la WP:POINT. (→Netscott) 00:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding this. All I see from the diffs is what Netscott claims, that Deuterium is changing the admin decisions on WP/3RR because he, who filed the reports, thinks the decisions ought to have gone his way. It makes me blink in disbelief... especially when William MC states that both users are being "silly", and blocks them both. How is Netscott silly for reverting this absurd vandalism, or isn't it absurd vandalism, have I totally missed some vital point? I do have faith in William MC's experience and judgement, I'm more than willing to be convinced, but, what is it I'm not seeing? Please somebody explain? Bishonen | talk 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

Net, I have asked Deuterium to drop the matter. If he continues I will block him. I suggest you drop the matter as well. JoshuaZ 00:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?... this is an ongoing pattern from yesterday. This user has been making concerted efforts towards admin shopping. And now is displaying this report on his user page. I got blocked by User:William M. Connolley for reverting his 3RR vandalism of changing commentary... and now he's trying to get me blocked again. This guy seriously needs to be cooling off. (→Netscott) (→Netscott) 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If he continues being disruptive, I will block him. He understands that. For now, I'd prefer if you both went back to editing articles. JoshuaZ 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This is rather indicative of where this is going, " Alright, I'll remove the listing but I'm not letting this go. Deuterium 00:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)" (→Netscott) 00:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: well, I hope somebody answers my concerns above eventually, but until then, I do consider that only one person was being disruptive and it wasn't Netscott. I would wield the cluebat, but since Joshua has an agreement (yes?) with Deuterium to block iff he makes any more of those edits on WP/3RR, and since I seem alone in finding them outrageous, I'll leave well enough alone for now. Bishonen | talk 00:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

You weren't alone in finding them outrageous - see his talk page, eg [12] and also the 3RR page - eg comment by PinchasC - I would support a block of Deuterium for a violation of WP:POINT for relisting this--Arktos ^talk 00:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the edit summary in this diff I think it'd be pretty safe to say that User:William M. Connolley'd support this block for POINT violation as well. (→Netscott) 01:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee has blocked him for 48 hours for trolling and WP:POINT. Bishonen | talk 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:Deuterium again

This User's User page is a personal attack and should have the attacking information removed. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. This should probably be made a subthread of the above discussion of this user, though. --InShaneee 02:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a further POINT violation by this user. (→Netscott) 02:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice, now he's edit warring with User:InShaneee over his user page. (→Netscott) 02:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm hope I am not out of place adding my two cents here as I am not an admin and have nowhere near the reputation many of the people who contribute to this page do but I think that a block for being so blatantly disruptive would not be out of place here as Deuterium has repeatedly assumed bad faith on his comments and by the fact that he has repeatedly disruptived the 3RR noticeboard among other pages with his comments and despite being first suggested and then told that it would be better for everyone if he just dropped it he has continued to be disruptive. Please feel free to remove this if I am out of line here but that's just my $.02 Cat-five - talk 02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked, "with an expiry time of 48 hours (trolling, POINT violations)" by User:InShaneee but is requesting an {{unblock}}. Obviously, I would advise against unblocking. (→Netscott) 02:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mike18xx: WP:Civility and WP:NOT a soapbox

These are some of the user's recent edit summaries which are extremely hostile:

• fluffery elimination; main Allende bio doesn't contain this "gushing", so there's no reason to entertain it here [13]
• Please stop the *BS*, Vints. This bloated, irrelevent, even redundant, paragraph concercing cessation of foreign aid DOES NOT BELONG in a "intervention" section. [14]
• And furthermore, Allende's "Marxist expirement" was a complete success -- it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Marxism was a dismal economic failure on every conceivable level. [15]
• If you're going to brag about your spiffy new source in Talk, why don't you actually use it in the ARTICLE, Vints? This is so tedious.. [16]
• Hey, look over there.... [17]

Also, take a look at Talk:Chile under Allende which has been turned into a soapbox. The user has already been blocked several times for these kinds of actions.--Jersey Devil 03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The following is a recent comment made by the above user to User:Vints:

Perhaps Vints should go over to the Nazism page and edit in a couple remarks reminding everyone, obsessively, that the Nazis were freely elected. Because, after all, that's soooo relevent and justifies dictatorship. Er, right.--Mike18xx 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) [18]

The hell they do. Go breathlessly announce it on the Nazism page, Vints, and see how far the fluffing gets. [19]--Jersey Devil 03:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This user appears to have been blocked multiple times before with little effect. A long block may be appropriate and would have my support. ++Lar: t/c 04:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Now the user is making false accusations of vandalism:

rv errors, loaded-insinuation phrases and straight-up rubbish for reasons cited previously. This is just vandalism now. [20]--Jersey Devil 02:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Light current block review?

Light current has already had a block review declined, but he's asking the two admins currently involved User:Lar and User:Drini to make sure they're acting on the correct info. I'm not on either side of this but just passing on the info. --Anchoress 05:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As another independant observer, based on his explanation there does seem to be a possibility that he was re-blocked on a misunderstanding. I would urge an admin to take a fresh look at this, perhaps User:Drini could confirm whether s/he intended to unblock as User:Light current suggests. Rockpocket 05:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the crux of Drini's block was a belief that Light current made an attack page that an EnthusiastFRANCE sock made. While Light current's behaviour has been less than spectacular on his talk page (particularly with respect to his discourse with Pschemp) I don't think it warrants a month's block. -- Samir धर्म 05:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i concur. I think (hope) Light current will see the, uh, light and realise that the way forward is an apology to Pschemp, a better understanding of WP:CIVIL and then he can get back to his excellent work on engineering related articles. Thanks for your attention, Samir. Rockpocket 07:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I tecnincally am the last admin to block... I happened to see the block by Drini, and it looked like (due to an error calculating timespans on my part) like Drini was trying to extend. So I unblocked and reblocked. It turns out I goofed, it was a new block not an extension so my action was unneeded. Allegations have been made that Drini lifted or meant to lift, which I think are incorrect. I've left a note on Drini's talk page stating that I am fine with whatever Drini does, leave it, reduce, lift... I gotta say that I see a LOT of nastiness and intransigence in this user's behaviour though. At a time when a month long block of Giano is being seriously mooted for one funny suggestion to a known troublemaker who really needs a community banning, I don't see a month in this case as disproportionate... but I'm not at all wedded to this block, and, particularly, defer to Drini. ++Lar: t/c 12:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Short version: Drini made the original block. Please speak with him about it. pschemp | talk 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

He's "apologised" 4 times now (under his definition) but hasn't yet actually admitted fault. We can't force people to apologise but my metric for how closely to watch a user includes whether they apologised sincerely or not, a sincere apology tends to be a sign of reduced risk of further problems. I wish Drini would weigh in. ++Lar: t/c 10:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I still wish Drini would weigh in. But all in all this user is now showing more understanding (see this) so I've taken it upon myself to reduce the block to 3 hours from now, menaing that the user will have been blocked for about 3 days. That now feels right to me. Drini or anyone else is welcome to comment on my actions. ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I did try to unblock you soon after, then the block dialog said "the blockid is not vlaid, probablky user is already unblocked". I did lift an autoblock (you may check), so I assumed it was all clear, as I dont' follow every AN thread, I rather got ocnfused about waht was going on 4444

[edit] Dangerous user continues to censor and insert POV into articles

Tywright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) continues to censor the Charlie Crist article and add POV to Tom Gallagher article. This appears to be a vandalism-only account and it should be blocked as such. --CFIF (talk to me) 10:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User made some POV edits, and one edit I'd classify as vandalism, but hasn't edited at all since the 15th, and has been warned twice (by Bastique and by you) only since then (on the 16th and 17th). Seems to be more of a POV pusher than an outright vandal. I feel a warning should suffice for now. Other opinions?--Firsfron of Ronchester 11:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone with a stake in the election that these two politicians are involved in, rather than an ordinary vandal. We may need to act to block indefinitely if there are further edits to those pages, and further warnings don't work quickly. Suggest some eyes are kept on the relevant pages (i.e. the two politicians and the contributions of Tywright). Metamagician3000 12:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Watching appropriate pages.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proudzionist2347 is a sock puppet of Zonerocks

Proudzionist2347 is a sock puppet of Zonerocks as established by CheckUser and the evidence provided therein (similar article edits, self-congratulatory, stacking a move poll, and signing in the wrong place). It would seem there are other concerns about Zonerocks, but at the least the puppet should be blocked, correct (even though the poll was over weeks ago)? I'm loathe to use {{sockpuppetcheckuser}} as it says the user has been blocked already, which obviously I can't do. -- nae'blis 15:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the Proudzionist2347 account indefinitely. Jkelly 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jkelly. I noticed that he removed talk page comments twice about sockpuppetry, but since he's left it alone on his userpage, I'm not too worried about it. -- nae'blis 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slow motion Kleptomania edit war?

I find myself in a slow motion edit war.

Whilst reading Nobby Nobbs, I came upon a link to Kleptomania. I was vaguly disturbed to find an article that smelled funny, rambling on about Monomania; I googled, found that Kleptomania was listed in the DSM, and checked the history.

And found that the current version was the work of one editor, User:Tobias Müller, who wrote the only modern paper cited as a source.

I reverted; and have since had to revert again.

And I'm wondering:

What should I do now?

^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 20:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I noticed you haven't tried communicating with Tobias. No wonder why you two are in an edit war, both the article's talk page and his user talk page are empty. Start a dialogue with him and try resolve your differences civilly. There's no real point raising a complaint here unless he continues to ignore you. PS: You're not allowed t blank your own User Talk page, you're only allowed to archive old messages. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  20:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm really hoping to be able to hand this situation off to somebody (preferably an admin, thus my posting here) who can deal with a POV warrior and/or a crank (which is what Tobias Müller may very well turn out to be, given his choice of sources), as I suspect I wouldn't be very good at handling this sort of situation. Anybody care to volunteer? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 21:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You could also try stealing the article :) Cat-five - talk 00:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Evading Indef Block

• RoyalFrush (talk · contribs) is JohnnyCanuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) attempting to evade his indef block. A block would be appreciated. Thank. -- pm_shef 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• That is a suspicious user. However, it is not as clearcut as most of his other sockpuppets. Let this one go until it starts playing the games that the others do. -- JamesTeterenko 02:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciate some help - vandalism by User:The Prophecy

The Prophecy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has a series of vandalistic redirects. (The last being my talk page and user page.) I temporarily blocked the user, though it should probably be a permanent block for a vandalism only account. I'd appreciate some help with reverting the mess. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm new to this and not sure where to start. I don't want to delete pertinent histories. — ERcheck (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried moving the Aginar page back, but it failed because he created a page with the same title as the one it had moved from. I think what needs to happen is that a bunch of articles need to be deleted (the redirects and so on) so that the pages can be moved back to their original locations for starters. I'll try reverting the edits he made to any content, that should be easy--BigCow 00:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I got it. He started with moving Aginar to Large Mammals and then kept moving it to a series of expletive/nonsense titles. I fixed the Aginar and my user pages, I think all the rest can be deleted. Just need to take care. — ERcheck (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

All deleted; I think it's fixed now. Thanks for posting the notice. Antandrus (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to you Antandrus. — ERcheck (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with MEChA

Two anon editors 128.97.143.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 71.135.249.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (probably the same person) have been making unencyclopedic rewrites to MEChA over the last few days (see here and here for two examples). 71.135.249.20 also blanked sections of the talk page and made personal attacks. [21] [22] [23] I tried to show good faith and have left messages on the talk pages of both the IP's regarding their actions, but none of my attempts have been responded to. I keep urging this user to discuss their edits on the talk page, but they have yet to do so in any meaningful way. There is also a small bit on this topic at Meeples' talk page. If some more people can keep an eye on these pages and try and talk to this person, that would be great. If the actions continue, I think a block may be in order. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 01:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, TheKaplan has found the source of these edits. [24] So in addition to being unencyclopedic, it's also a possible copywrite violation. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 01:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll semi-protect the page. -Will Beback 06:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 07:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright concerns regarding Zelda imagery

Over the last few days there has been some contestation between myself and several users regarding the use of a logo from the Legend of Zelda series of games. In particular the image that is at the middle of this is Image:Triforce.svg. A very close likeness of this image is featured prominently at http://www.zelda.com/universe/, and is in fact the avatar Nintendo uses for that website. My stance is that Image:Triforce.svg is a copyrighted work, and I've changed the tagging it from {{pd-self}} to {{logo}} (though perhaps {{game-icon}} is more appropriate). The counter response to this is that the image is a Sierpinski triangle and is inherently uncopyrightable as a result, plus being user created. My counter-response has been that the image being a mathematical construct does not change the fact that it is a copyrighted work. The logo for Mitsubishi is also a mathematical construct (simply parallelograms arranged around a focal point). A quick summary of these respective positions may be found at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Image:Triforce.svg.

As of now, the point remains in dispute. Recently, a used replaced the image with a yellow triangle, which from my chair is perfectly acceptable (see [25]). A day later, this was replaced by using the same triangle image three times, creating essentially the same image as Image:Triforce.svg (see [26]). I reverted this change since it did create an essentially identical image [27]. Shortly thereafter, the original Image:Triforce.svg was placed back on the template [28]. I've reverted this change as well, returning to the single triangle version [29].

This dispute has gone on for four days now, and I've reverted/replaced five times over those days vs. three other users who have been reverting me. The dispute has also involved {{Zeldaproj}} and {{Zelda-stub}} though with less reversion in their histories. User:BigNate37 who put in place the single triangle (a good move I thought) also made a good suggestion my talk page to "call in a second opinion" [30]. Since Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems didn't produce any dialogue, I'm bringing it here.

For the record, I think it's blatantly apparent this is a copyrighted image both by nature of the presence of it on Nintendo's website and by the fact that several users are quite interested in having some version of it on the various templates. If the image were not tightly related to Zelda, there would not be such interest. The image is tightly related because Nintendo markets it as such. They have a vested interest in protecting the use of such logos. The single yellow triangle is an acceptable, free-use alternative.

Lastly, I think the core of the dispute and its value is questionable; the argument is over using a copyrighted image (potentially or otherwise) on templates that do not contribute content to the main article namespace. The stub marker for example is not compromised by the lack of the logo; it would be served just as well by a single triangle. I do not see the value in potentially violating Nintendo's copyright in order to support a (subjectively) prettier version of three templates. I would much rather see the people who think this image is usable contact Nintendo regarding its specific stance regarding this image; this is the right path to take, not presume it isn't copyrighted.

If consensus is otherwise to my stance, I'll quite happily concede the point. --Durin 01:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

IP isn't my daily grind, but -- FWIW -- Nintendo has probably trademarked the triangle as a mark of the Zelda game. The company couldn't copyright a construct discovered in 1915, and Mitsubishi hasn't copyrighted theirs either. As a trademark, use of the symbol is permitted to any party not competing with Nintendo. Trademarking does not remove a mark from the public domain, and only restricts its use within the limited industry or trade to the party trademarking. In short, the triangle is usable, unless we start "Wikipedia:The Video Game". :) Xoloz 01:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall a story that that arangement of trangles, was printed on various goods in Japan before the existance of the video game. This needs to be looked into. If it is true, the symbol may be inelligible for copyright. (Of course, without a reference, this is only a theory!) Though, as stated, its relation and use in video games may be trademarked by the Nintendo company. --Kevin_b_er 02:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That is also pretty much the logo of the American Academy of Actuaries, Image:2006AAALOGO.jpg -- Avi 04:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say copyright fears have been allayed. Gateman1997 05:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at Nintendo's trademarks on the USPTO site. They have 287 active registered trademarks, including the word "Triforce" for a huge range of uses. They've trademarked several pictures of Mario, several variants of their "circle within a circle" logo; their cube of the letter N, and the outline of each of their controllers. They've trademarked a long list of Pokemon names, plus "Gotta catch em all!". But they don't seem to have trademarked that triangle symbol. --John Nagle 06:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks everybody for your hard work! Much appreciated. Based on this discussion, I've retagged the image as {{pd-ineligible}} and put it back [31][32][33] on the templates in question. --Durin 12:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JohnMarkKarr.jpg

Could someone please explain fair use to User:Mineralè? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

His personal attacks ([34] have gone over the edge, and I will not deal with him any more. All of this because I listed his image as a copyvio. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you linnk the right diff there? - brenneman ^{L} 02:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't think "please note some of us are actually trying to build a wikipedia, not just play whack a vandal MMPORG." is an attack? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I do, but that was the diff before and I wanted to make sure which one you were talking about rather than guessing. He's clearly incivil and wrong about the image to boot. - brenneman ^{L} 03:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Zoe is absolutely correct here. Non-iconic images from press agencies are not candidates for fair use. (→Netscott) 03:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As its silly and a legal liability to have this copyright violation sitting around, and since Minerale keeps taking the non fair use tags off, I have deleted this image. Take it to DRV if anyone disagrees. pschemp | talk 03:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp: I only removed the tag once, the second time it was a bot generated tag becuase it was briefly orphaned. Like it or not His image will be plastered around the media for the next year or so as the trial, conviction, sentencing and appeals go through, his image will be on that article. I see many people here do not like APF, and I understand that, here's a Reuters photo: [35]

• http://www.cnn.com his photo is on front page
• http://www.msnbc.msn.com Front page
• http://www.ajc.com front page

The image of Karr will serve as a reminder of the grave mistakes the media made in accusing the Ramsey family. I urge you to upload and use the Reuters photo, looks like y'all are not going to agree with me on this for now, consider it for next week. —Mineralè 2006-08-18 03:34Z

You are totally missing the fact that is is illegal to use images from AFP. There is no attempt at censorship here, just a protection of Wikipedia's legal liability. pschemp | talk 03:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If an image qualifies under fair use, it does not matter who 'sells it'. Even if IF AFP were to specifically deny wikipedia the right. See: [36] —Mineralè 2006-08-18 03:54Z

Mineralè, please see Wikipedia:Fair_use#Counterexamples #5 and know that guideline (and the policy below) is what Wikipedia operates under. (→Netscott) 03:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That's correct, grandparent entry said it's illegall to use no matter what, point five carves out an exception. —Mineralè 2006-08-18 04:09Z

Indeed, an exception to which the photo you uploaded did not fall under. The photo itself was not newsworthy merely the individual in the photo. I would recommend that you use your time in an effort to source an image that will qualify for fair usage or better yet a "free" image. (→Netscott) 04:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the meaning of "iconic". If the photo became so well known that it merited an article of its own, then reproduction of this photo would be fair use in the article about the photo itself. It will virtually never be fair use in an article about the subject of the photo. Snottygobble 04:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, there's nothing to agree to. The photos of agencies like Reuters, AFP etc. will never qualify for fair usage unless the image in question is "iconic". (→Netscott) 03:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threats regarding edits to Myron Wolf Child

209.107.99.199 (talk • contribs • count) has been making legal threats regarding edits made to Myron Wolf Child. The IP has been blocked for a 6 month period, but claims that Myron Wolf Child's nation-wide network and Legal Defense Team will continue correcting the information until legal matters have been settled. Just wanted to mention this here before it escalated into something nasty. -- Natalya 03:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the legal threats; if it continues, then I would protect the page. Iolakana•T 15:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mana.ustad

User has been banned in the past for uploading unsources images, but is doing it again. He also created Sana (actress), consisting only of an image, and removed my PROD tag without explanation. -Elmer Clark 08:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him for a month (yes I know, a bit on the short side) and will delete his images and the non-article. Kusma (討論) 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• PRODs can be contested for any reason (or the lack of it). I've speedied it as {{empty}}, which you should have tagged it with. - Mailer Diablo 08:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right you are, sorry. And I did not restore the PROD he contested, I just asked him to explain why he did so. -Elmer Clark 08:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Indefblock, please, impostor. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kimchi.sg 10:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Iron" InShaneeee? This guy's my new (indef blocked imposter) hero! --InShaneee 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consumed Crustracean's RfA

is being overrun by obvious and ridiculous socks that have totally stolen the show. Would anyone please restore order? - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see a huge overrun of socks. Every sock and point violation looks like they've been caught and noted as such for the bureaucrat to ignore. While I supposed we could sprotect, I'm not sure we've ever sprotected a RFA :). I'll just try to keep it on my watchlist for the remaining two days or so that its running. Syrthiss 11:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was sprotected anyhow. Syrthiss 12:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's happened before: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eluchil404. -- nae'blis 12:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fotimus

There is an edit war occuring over a suspected sock template placed on that page. Anyone want to resolve? (Please note: first edit was to Consumed Crustracean's RfA). Viridae^Talk 12:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've full protected that userpage with the sock notice intact, tho the user is requesting changes to it with {{editprotected}} on their talk. I'm not inclined to edit it, but I won't stand in the way if another admin wishes to remove the protection. I'm also not going to stand in the way if another admin were to indefblock the user as a sleepersock. Syrthiss 12:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --InShaneee 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Srebrenica massacre

There is a nasty edit war at Srebrenica massacre. I've been a bit lax, hoping that with a bit of patience, advice and warnings it would resolve itself, but I'm now think some blocks are required to give some credibility to our policies. I'm probably too much involved myself to mete out blocks, so I'd like to request short blocks to what I see as the main problem users:

• Osli73 (talk · contribs) for constant edit warring (see the history). He violated the 3RR with reverts on 18 Aug 05:18, 17 Aug 16:34, 17 Aug 16:01, 17 Aug 06:58; look for instance at the section titled "(Dispute regarding) Serb casualties around Srebrenica", starting around line 435, to see that these are reverts. He was warned by User:Heah (diff), I also told him to stop (diff), but Osli replied that he will continue edit warring diff), and indeed he did. (I realize that there is a page for 3RR violations, but I'd like to have everything together.)
• Bosniak (talk · contribs) for personal attacks and sterile edit warring. Bosniak said that Osli "lack basic tenets of common sense, general knowledge, and intelligence." (diff). Bosniak was blocked for personal attacks before (log). Furthermore, he blindly reverts the article every day, without any regard of what has changed, and thus wipes out any improvements. For example, the reverts on 18 Aug 00:45, 17 Aug 01:11, 16 Aug 05:31, 15 Aug 05:25 and 14 Aug 04:02 all reintroduce spelling mistakes. He was told not to do this by Live Forever (diff) and me (same diff as my warning to Osli). This makes it very hard to find a compromise version.

Of course, I'd also appreciate help from anybody with experience in handling disputes. Specifically, I'm wondering about temporarily protecting the page. My only concern is that one of the parties is asking for page protection (diff, diff) — guess they've never heard about m:The Wrong Version — and I don't want them to think that their edit warring got them what they wanted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • This response is from Bosniak (talk · contribs) ***

I agree that edit wars should stop, but you need to realize that [Osli73] is primary to blame for edit wars, blind reverts, and full blown vandalism of Srebrenica Massacre article. I would be more than glad to stop reverting the article to a more civilized versions, but please bear in mind that Osli73 (talk · contribs) needs to stop first, because he is leading a war with at least 10 other editors who refuse to accept his vandalism. In other words, [Osli73] is vandalizing article, he deletes facts such as the fact that 8,106 Bosniaks died in the massacre (well documented, with names, JMBR numbers, names of parents, etc). In my opinion, and in the opinion of at least 10 other editors, Osli73 needs to be banned from ever editing Srebrenica massacre article. Bosniak 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fishy checkuser request related to Romanian/Hungarian articles

Over at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Árpád, Latinitas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has filed a checkuser request against Árpád (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for "Fascist edits." Both accounts are only a week old, and they edit Hungarian/Romanian topics. I'm pretty sure something else is going on here but I can't quite put my finger on it. Any help? Thatcher131 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

When I see Latinitas' own edits on Magyarization [37], I start to wonder whether it is not a sock of a banned editor... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a sock of permabanned User:Bonaparte abakharev 23:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay, so I was right in my mail, Alex? What do I win? :P -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting help in reviewing a user's edits

Hi all, Special:Randompage landed me this morning on an article with a really bizarre section (that I removed) left by Acaryatid. I'm starting to look at his edit history, and see some things that look anomalous. I'd appreciate some more eyes on their contribs to help determine if there's a problem or not. Thanks. --Improv 15:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I will go through from the beginning and see if there's anything problematic and, if so, remove it. The user doesn't seem to have top edit on anything, so I'll have to manually revert anything that's in violation of policy, if anything. UPDATE: I'm removing most of the politicalfriendster links, with a few exceptions where the spamminess is outweighed by usefulness. Captainktainer * Talk 16:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed pretty much everything I could find that hasn't already been removed, barring the rare occasion where this user's contributions have been helpful. Thanks for finding that. Captainktainer * Talk 17:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like several of his additions have been copyvios. · rodii · 16:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spreading neologisms

I thought I would dump this here as it is outside my comfort level. User Vgfarmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to have an agenda to post new words and synonyms (neologisms) into existing articles and one new article Pratdigger. What is notable is that the words may all come from http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=57262821. From there: "We are planting Verbal Seeds around the world to see what will grow. Please help us disseminate the seeds, water the shoots and then reap the harvest." I began by reverting the additions, but I think it needs more than that, but I don't know what. There is some still unreverted in British coinage: I began by adding a "citation needed"... Notinasnaid 16:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Everything's been reverted no, and he's been warned. The behavior halted about six hours ago. --Durin 18:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Margana

Margana's edit-warring at Psephos has been going on for so long it is practically a geological process. There has been a brief respite during which he abstained out of fear of being blocked by me, but as soon as I undertook not to block him again (having become too involved) he returned to the article to edit war some more.

For months he has edit-warred and disrupted this article out of his insistence on including his personal POV version of an assertion that the subject of the article is politically biased, using Cuba as an example. With a resolution finally at hand, he has today suddenly decided to use Laos instead, taking us back three months to have the whole argument all over again. I am so frustrated and angry about this blatant trolling.

Can an uninvolved and relatively calm admin please review and do something before I blow my top? Snottygobble 23:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks nicely balanced now. What is the source of the argument? Would it be something for our political science folks or our Australians or....? Geogre 02:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Margana is blatantly trying to bait Adam Carr with his edits to this article, and in his incessant edit warring is driving just about every regular Australian editor up the wall. The only reason the article looks reasonable at the moment is because Margana hasn't done his round of reverts for today. I really think this is about time for a community ban - Margana has no useful edits, and wasting enormous amounts of good users' time on this. Rebecca 06:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You looked through all of my 664 edits and determined that all of them were useless? Quite a feat! I should explain to the gallery that Rebecca (who happens to live in the same city as Adam Carr) is the one who wrote that Psephos article, about Adam Carr's website, on Adam Carr's request, and with unverifiable information privately supplied by Adam Carr. She has since on numerous occasions not only reverted without explanation, but also abused rollback to do that. Snottygobble, another Australian with a long history of edit-warring in conjunction with Adam Carr and Rebecca, then violated both protection policy and (twice) blocking policy after he had been involved in the edit war, and just now pledged to stop this, after I engaged an advocate. Margana 21:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Snottygobble, I think you'd be prudent to keep out of it now. From a brief review, this looks like a user who is confrontational and "difficult" but good at Wikilawyering (though I have no idea who is correct about the underlying content dispute, and I don't want to know). It's better if some completely uninvolved admins watch the page and see what happens. Rebecca, have you tried any dispute resolution processes? You should know that it sometimes does more harm than good for admins to try to get involved and conciliate (the term I use for mediation backed by threats) disputes unless there is blatantly abusive conduct. Metamagician3000 08:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This editor has been a pain in the butt at Jimmy Wales in the past, insisting that wikitruth was a reliable source and that info on there should be included in the article. That was resolved by a strawpoll, when it became clear that he was alone in this. This editor games the system systematically, using exactly three reverts per day, even at one time selfreverting after noticing that he had done the fourth within 24 hours [38] and doing it immediatly after the 24 hour period was over [39]. I blocked him after that anyway for gaming the system [40], but it shows the gaming aspect of this user. As this user is active in a narrow range of articles, only a limited number of editors has encountered him, but the amount of edit warring and gaming is staggering. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a blatant lie that I insisted that "wikitruth was a reliable source" - I didn't use wikitruth as a source for facts, I quoted it, and of course every website is a reliable source as to what it itself says. As to those reverts, all it shows is that I scrupulously respect the 3RR. Somewhere on my talk page I have already explained the absurdity of the whole "gaming" concept (it's like a cop saying "the speed limit is 50 here - you're consistently driving 49, I'm fining you for gaming the system"). Also, a strawpoll, by its very nature, can not possibly "resolve" anything. If anything, a proper vote might resolve something, but then, WP:NOT a democracy. Arguments count, not dittos. I should also note that after KimvdLinde was involved in an edit war with me on Jimmy Wales, she started stalking me and opposing me wherever she could - she would never otherwise have been interested in Psephos, but seeing me there, she reverted against me. Margana 21:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy demonstrates to me that you do not understand 3RR, which is to encourage people to resolve their differences on talk pages and build consensus, rather than attempt to get/keep certain content on a page by reverting. Maybe if you discussed things more and tried to compromise/reason with other editors you would have fewer problems? JChap2007 21:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what the ideal is, but talking and consensus-building requires that both sides are willing to do that, and acting in good faith. I suggest you take a look at the relevant talk pages. I am the one who discussed more than anyone else. Now on the other hand, try to find the name Rebecca on Talk:Psephos... Margana 22:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to convince people to be sympathetic to you, directing them to that talk page is not a good idea. You are obviously engaged in a pattern of tendentious editing, trying to edit war against a broad consensus (which is not, I hasten to add, synonymous with unanimity). I doubt you will convince people that Cuba or Laos have free elections. You need to realize that you are not going to be able to "win" every "battle" on a wiki, accept it and move on. JChap2007 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment about me not convincing people "that Cuba or Laos have free elections" shows that you do not remotely understand what this dispute is about, and are shooting from the hip based on what can only be a superficial skimming of the talk page. Nor is there a broad consensus, as I have explained repeatedly. Margana 23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like further steps need to be taken for this user; this has been going on for so long that hopes of resolving it peacefully are slim-to-none. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hence a community ban. Rebecca 01:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't formed a particularly favourable view of Margana from my limited investigation of the matter so far (see above), but IMHO it's way premature to be talking about a community ban. Again, aren't there dispute resolution processes that could be tried? Is there a problem with someone initiating an RfC in some appropriate form, if the problem seems all that bad? Metamagician3000 02:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• It sure looks like one against all and that one being quite recalcitrant. It also looks like there has been enough time passed that this go to mediation. If that fails (and it probably will), ArbCom. Because this user has been selectively warring or insisting, depending upon your point of view, it isn't really a "community" worn out, so I agree that a community ban isn't appropriate. Geogre 02:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe formal mediation is worth attempting at all; each and every attempt of outside intervention has failed.--cj | talk 11:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Margana is the victim of having many wikiEnemies because he is passionate about getting the truth out.

[edit] Taeguk Warrior

Taeguk Warrior (talk · contribs) refuses to stop removing warnings and similar notices from his page. He was recently blocked for a week due to this behavior, and resumed it immediately upon "release". I've blocked him for another week in order to give us time to discuss what should be done. I'm all in favor of blocking for at least a month, if not longer. Taeguk Warrior is constantly revert-warring on many different articles in addition to his own user talk page [41]. He has also gotten into rows over whether or not an image is tagged properly, and has removed dispute tags on several images: [42], [43], [44], [45], and there are others. So, what say ye? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else want to put in a thought on this one? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a case for his block evasion down below--I didn't see this section until just now. Perhaps that should be moved here? —LactoseTI^T 19:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done so. Your post from below has been moved directly below this one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

User continuously skirts blocks with large block of IP's.

Here [[46]], he seems to imply that a comment was left by him here [[47]]. That IP (71.124.113.216) is from a hostname ending with ".chi01.dsl-w.verizon.net." Here again [[48]] he mentions he forgot to sign in and had the IP 71.124.122.59, another from the same block.

He has been blocked repeatedly for blanking his talk page, removing PUI tags/vandalism from pictures he uploaded, etc. (now on his second 1 week block). The longest blocks were the last two consecutive week long ones which he seems to have avoided by editing from his IP directly:

• 02:43, August 18, 2006 1 week
• 01:10, August 11, 2006 1 week

He seems to have skirted his first one week block using the ip 71.124.34.4 (from the "chi01.dsl-w.verizon.net" pool, contributions here [[49]], where he amassed first a 24 hour and then a 48 block. Started editing on August 12, 2006 from this IP, one day into his first 1 week block, diving right into the same Masutatsu Oyama article, removing PUI tags /from the images uploaded by Taeguk Warrior here [[50]], [[51]], [[52]], [[53]], [[54]], [[55]], etc. (there are many).

Here [[56]] he copied an unusually worded warning onto my talk page from Taeguk Warrior's user page here [[57]].

When this IP was blocked for 48 hours, only a short time after coming off a 24 hour block, a couple of edits from 74.64.70.159 contributions here [[58]] (outside of the pool) continued his reverts on Masutatsu Oyama.

After a day or so, edits started coming in from 71.124.36.224 contributions here [[59]], again in the "chi01.dsl-w.verizon.net" pool to the same Masutatsu Oyama article. They continued edits on a few articles frequented by Taeguk Warrior, including one created by him here [[60]]. Here [[61]], his edit summary refers to me specifically (saying that since he added a free picture it must make me angry (I had cleaned up the article significantly and tagged some unfree images he uploaded).

At this point his week long block expired and he promptly found himself under another 1 week block for doing the same thing (removing tags, blanking his user page--unknowingly I may have fanned the flames a bit, my vandal script noticed him making the same changes I had tagged as vandalism. He reverted my warnings as well as those from administrators/others.

Now that he's on his second week-long block, he has started editing from 72.69.105.138 contributions here [[62]], again in the chi01.dsl-w.verizon.net pool. Again, he is reverting/removing bits of content from Masutatsu Oyama, though it's relatively minor compared to what he was doing before.

At first I didn't notice they were all from the same pool, but not only do they have blatantly the same edit patterns. I put it together when I realized the only time these IP's show up is when the main account is blocked, and happened to see his post on the Masuyama talk page where he seemed to indicate that he was in the same pool. There are other edits in other articles, but the Masuyama article illustrates it particularly well since there are very few editors involved with it (and I wanted to keep this as brief as possible).

I thought he'd cool down a bit and make some valuable contributions (he has the capability--he added to several articles with some nice pictures). It seems, though, that he might not be cooling down at all--perhaps because he just avoids the block and keeps editing. It's unfortunate because he's a relatively new user and just seems to be escalating the bad edits vs. the good ones. I had originally thought to request semi-protection for the Masuyama page, though it seems kind of unnecessary since he does seem to blank/revert less when he's blocked. Of course, I'm discouraged when my edits are undone and he's uncivil--namecalling and the like, but I'll stick around. I'd just avoid the articles he's editing, but he seems now to want to "follow me around," putting my contribution link on his user page (originally under a list of stalkers, now by itself). Sometimes he's particularly viscious, tagging good faith efforts as "vandalism" to confuse the issue. If anyone has some suggestions, I'm all ears. —LactoseTI^T 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Created Checkuser request. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceula sockpuppet & spam

Users User:Ceula, User:LeonardLorch, User:Edytore, User:199.88.72.4, and User:199.88.67.33 appear to be sockpuppets, switching accounts to avoid being blocked for spamming while continuing to try to include promotional information both as links and as content. Additionally, some of them have been editing others' comments about this behaviour of theirs. Most of this has been happening in Dental_floss. 01:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A request for checkuser was declined with the comment "obvious". Should this be moved to WP:SSP or is it fine here? 03:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Zeq copyvio

I know that Wikipedia is meant to be a rightwing alternative to Britannica [63] but lifting an entire article (word for word) from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a bit too much, isn't it? Especially with this edit summary: "Iranian involvement in Lebanon (please explain in talk what is the problem. I took specila care to write it as NPOV as I can but I am willing to listen to any issue.)" [64] --Part of the thesis 01:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Confirmed by CopyScape. Deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Loged on RfAr/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans; see also, my RfAr/Request for clarification. El_C 18:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CAT:CSD backlog

Just so you know, there's a rather large backlog over at CAT:CSD. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 03:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

50 pages seems pretty normal... I don't do images but there's just one page right? Seems less than usual. Am I missing something? --W.marsh 04:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

For CSD, a large backlog is ~250+. See the category tracker. Dragons flight 03:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was fairly large earlier. Of course, I wouldn't know exactly what a "large backlog" was. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 04:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Mr. Lefty was right to bring it up. A backlog of 50 can be a backlog of 100 in no time, given how much garbage shows up and how well our volunteers tag the worst of it and how too few admins are doing new pages patrol at any time to deal with the influx. We should always get warnings here when the backlog hits 50, IMO. Geogre 12:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Then like 90-99% of the threads on this board would be backlog warnings :-) --W.marsh 13:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Altering a user's signature

Here User:Hagiographer changed my signature to that of another user User:Pura Paja. Can an admin please do something to discourage him? SqueakBox 03:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Displaced Brit

I have blocked Displaced Brit (talk · contribs) for three hours for disruption after a series of events over the past few days have escalated to the point that I felt a blocking was warranted. Displaced Brit and User:CFIF got involved in an arguement over an AfD, and both users, I feel at least somewhat violated WP:Civil. I left polite messages on both users' talk pages, and CFIF apologized to D.B. D.B. wanted further apologies, but was asked to let the matter drop by more than one admin. After days of sniping at CFIF, tonight he nominated a list for deletion which clearly CFIF worked on extensively, and the reasons for the nomination appear flimsy at best. I have blocked this user for three hours for disruption, and left a message on his talk page. DB has left a note on his page stating I'm in league with CFIF and that I've abused my powers. I invite review, as I feel it's clear I've been neutral throughout this matter; I left numerous notes for CFIF warning him to back off and assume good faith, and left various friendly warning notes for D.B. (see associated talk pages user talk:Displaced Brit, user talk:CFIF for details).--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• I feel that User:CFIF has a history of abusive behaviour, branding those who he disagrees with as sockpuppets, stalkers, uncivil, etc. He then gets various administrators involved in his attack campaign, all whilst playing the victim. It seems almost if this user has a great parinoia, which is leading to his/her track record of jumping to conclusions and accusing people in deletion votes of bad behaviour in order to attempt to skew the vote in favour of his position. This user represents some of the worst of Wikipedia, acting as if it was a clique and he/she is the arbiter of who can join. It also should be noted that this user desires to be an administrator, something which if it was to occur would most likely cause more harm than good. I also feel that User:Firsfron is not an impartial arbiter in this matter and his behaviour should also be looked into. Displaced Brit 16:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for following policy, no discussion from the blocking admin

Administrator User:William M. Connolley blocked me last week for following WP:BLP. I was removing poorly sourced material from a biography of a living person and was blocked for it even though WP:BLP states such removals are exempt from 3RR. I did make some mistakes, but I thought it unfair for Connolley to just block me without word from him to discuss it first. He also did not notify me of the block until an hour after the block. --HResearcher 06:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

HR, did you declare in advance that you were reverting under the BLP provision (did you wave your white BLP flag, in other words?), and was the material negative and arguably defamatory? A link would help. This is a new policy so there are bound to be some teething troubles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I found it and see it's been deleted. I can read the article but I can't view diffs once it's deleted, so I can't tell what the particular edit was (and if it was perhaps defamatory, please don't repeat it here). I can see in general that it had to do with using Usenet as a source. That would depend whether it was negative material, whether it was written by the subject, and so on. Generally, we don't use Usenet as a source (see WP:V, but that wouldn't necessarily allow you to revert under BLP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response SlimVirgin. The article was deleted then recreated, so the diff's are unavailable. I'm assuming this was done to prevent legal problems, as now there's no evidence remaining. Note that the new version that was "recreated" was drastically cleaned up and then protected. Generally, and others agree on this including a comment from Fred Bauder about one of the editors, the page was being composed and used as an attack page by a couple of users. One of the users was the one who reported my "violation" of 3RR. I did wave the white flag, but was ignored. Blocked without discussion from the admin, and then a notice I'd been blocked an hour later. Instead I got a note from the admin saying that BPL "isn't a get out of jail free card". If William Connolly would have said something to me first, at least I would have had a chance to understand what I was doing wrong because I thought I was helping Wikipedia by removing poorly sourced claims. I did make a few mistakes by removing things that were sourced and I restored those before I was blocked, but one of the users using the page as an attack page used my deletion/restoration against my instead of assuming good faith. --HResearcher 08:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A pedantic point I know, but the deletion does not mean there is no evidence remaining, it means the evidence is restricted to admins. Otherwise you are right: the patern for WP:BLP / WP:OFFICE deletions is that the article is deleted, a stub created, and then new content may or may not be added with thorough sourcing, depending on the nature of the complaint and indeed the complainant. WP:3RR is pretty much automatic, so it's understandable if someone missed the BLP flag. Did you add {{unblock}} to your Talk page? I'm guessing it would have been sorted quite quickly, and you clearly understand why this BLP a particular problem and people tend to err on the side of caution. Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by a simple cock-up. William is not the sort of guy to go around blocking at random. Just zis Guy you know? 16:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Inquirer and User:Dionyseus

Lately, User:Dionyseus has been removing information from The Inquirer that is necessary to make the article NPOV [65] and keeps removing it after his changes have been reverted. This kind of disruptive POV-pushing is unacceptable.

He has a long history of adding malicious defamation to the article (e.g. [66] among others) and of trying to paint The Inquirer in the most negative light possible. In the past, he once re-added unsourced information that was removed [67] and made defamatory false accusations of vandalism against the person who removed the unsourced information [68].

His agenda needs to stop. Furthermore, I am thinking about contacting Jimbo or Danny and requesting WP:OFFICE protection of The Inquirer. Note that the Inquirer's founder has complained in the past about the libel being committed by Dionyseus [69]. jgp ^T_C 06:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, he's removing legitimate warnings from his talk page, and provided an abusive edit summary [70]. I also find it very hypocritical that in the past, he has responded to any criticism of him by citing WP:AGF (e.g. [71]), but when he gets a deserved NPOV warning on his talk page, he immediately accuses me of bad faith. jgp ^T_C 06:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That sentence was completely unencyclopedic. When he "re-added" the sentence, he did not simply re-add it, he changed it to be encyclopedic, an attempt to make it seem as if I had removed an encyclopedic sentence. Compare the sentence I removed: [[72]], with his "re-add": [73]. His new version is completely fine, but there was no need to call it a "re-add", and there was no need to claim that I violated NPOV. Dionyseus 07:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

His warning on my userpage is completely unwarranted and I will continue to remove them. Dionyseus 07:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not for you to decide whether or not the warnings are legitimate. You have now violated WP:3RR, and you have been reported. jgp ^T_C 07:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Jgp's unwarranted warning on my talk page has been removed by administrator Alex_Bakharev. [74] Dionyseus 08:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, before removing the warnings, Alex restored the warnings twice and there was much discussion over the issue. But since that has been resolved, I'll withdraw this request for protection. jgp ^T_C 08:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest removing the 3RR report too, it seems to be perpetuating an issue that has now been resolved. Viridae^Talk 08:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universe Daily/Today/Bad Astronomy spam again

For prerefrencing, read the following:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/06 See the section on UniverseToday
• ANI#Bad_Astronomy.2C_I_suppose ANI on him
• Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Universe Daily for spam links
• See the page history of Universe Today, a page on a real website he keeps trying to change to include links to his website(s).

Major accounts:

• Universe Daily (talk · contribs)
• Bad Astronomer (talk · contribs)

This is a prolific spammer I've been tracking. All his spam link redirected to http://projectorion.proboards28.com/index.cgi or something that looked identical to it. Often the page would proclaim the link you just went to, but it was the same internet forum in any case. The pictures changed too I think. Pretty cruddy. The category link has a list of many of his spam websites.

BUT

He has a new bloody tactic. The links are now framing to actual websites. Of course, since he controls all the redirect sites, he can just change them to whatever once they've made their home on wikipedia articles

The latest accounts by him are as follows, and need to be blocked. This would be easier if he wasn't resorting to the subterfuge:

• Spacegoat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Bloodredrover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Dinohunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Can there be defined community ban on this loser? People are going to start getting suspicous and complaining that I'm removing "valid" links. I'm sure other administrator's have met with his spam and have blocked his sockpuppets. To those, go check your own contribution histories, and you'll see the same spam links that you removed are now happily pointing to some innoculus website. I'm willing to stake plenty on seeing this guy go down. I'll answer any questions I can on this guy. Kevin_b_er 07:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Kevin. I was wondering myself because I couldn't see the connection with Dinohunter at first. Nice catch I have to say. Start up a subpage page for him at Wikipedia:Long term abuse and create a Template similar to Template:GT pointing to that page and tag his accounts with it. In the meantime, file a request on all his known user accounts at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser for now so future admins can block on sight. I have a feeling this guy is going to be around awhile. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  07:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a better solution is to list all his domains on meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist. If he's going to keep on spamming Wikipedia then it's going to cost real money for domain registrations. Don't forget to use Special:Linksearch to weed out all of his sockpuppets and articles he's attacking. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  08:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm at an impasse on that. See, if he's resorting to putting up framed webpages that appear to be 'good' sites, but are actually waiting to be changed to spam, its going to get really hard to track him if he starts making more websites that are superfake because his webpages are all blacklisted. Right now I'm having an easy time tracking his movements. Checkuser could be of some help, and while I'm not going to state my beliefs, I have a pretty good idea as a result of maintainence/clerking that I do on RFCU that most of his spam is outside the range of checkuser. Kevin_b_er 08:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll start writing up a Long Term abuse profile on the guy tomorrow. By the way, don't use Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Universe Daily anymore, move everything into Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily and tag his puppets using {{subst:sockpuppet|Universe Daily}} on their user pages. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  08:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would support a community block for an extended period, though not indefinite, because of the severity of what he's doing. In my pantheon of abuses, squabbling is low, but making us advertise is very, very high. Geogre 12:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Signed up today, has made one edit (to this page) [75] which had a suprisingly jargoned edit summary. Possible sock (of who - I don't know, maybe someone involved in that discussion) or just Encyclopedia Dramatica or Wikipedia Review editor? Might bear looking at. Viridae^Talk 12:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Danielpi

User:Danielpi insists on reinserting an off-topic request in The Inquirer talk page. [[76]] I asked him politely in his talk page to not reinsert it because of The Inquirer's personal attacks against me and Wikipedia, but he ignored me and reinserted it anyways. [77] Dionyseus 13:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Dionyseus is currently involved in an ArbCom case with me. Many of my assertions about his conduct are confirmed by his subsequent wiki behavior, and I am simply inviting users to share their opinions at the ArbCom workshop. Since he has a long history with The Inquirer, it seems relevant to the case in question. I am expected, as a participant in that ArbCom, to produce evidence. I assume testimonials count, and I am therefore inclined to say that posting solicitations for comment in Dionyseus's stomping grounds is relevant to those discussion pages. Danny Pi 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee pretty much disagreed with everything Danielpi claimed about me, and it appears that he's going to be banned for his personal attacks against me. [78] [79] Anyways, I don't see how the arbitration case is related to The Inquirer talk page, and I definitely do not appreciate his discourteous solicitations. Dionyseus 20:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RoyGrec.png and use on {{House of Oldenburg (Glucksburg-Greece)}}

Today, I removed Image:RoyGrec.png from {{House of Oldenburg (Glucksburg-Greece)}} [80], leaving as I usually do (I've done about 2000 of these) a detailed edit summary of why it was removed along with links to policy and further explanation. A bit later, User:Jtdirl (also an admin) reverted my removal without commentary [81]. I reverted this reversion, stating again the basis and noting that I was taking the discussion to User:Jtdirl's talk page [82], which I did [83]. User:Jtdirl reverted the change again, this time indicating I should discuss this with people working on royalty templates, and that I did not know the law [84]. I reverted again, this time without commentary from me [85] hoping that User:Jtdirl will review the message I left on his talk page and discuss the change there.

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9 is clear and unequivocal; images tagged with a fair use tag may not be used outside of the main article namespace. Image:RoyGrec.png is tagged with {{coatofarms}}. Strictly speaking if the image is considered as a coat of arms, the image does not qualify under fair use, per that template "A coat of arms can be depicted in multiple ways, and may only be used on Wikipedia if the design is available under a free licence. " Thus, the image essentially has no license and isn't usable here until a license is determined. If it is considered an emblem, then it's use qualifies as fair use.

Since I've already reverted User:Jtdirl twice in less than ten minutes, I'm bringing this here for others to be aware of, and if in agreement to remind User:Jtdirl of our policy on the use of fair use images. --Durin 15:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Left message on User:Jtdirl talk page encouraging discussion instead of reverting. --FloNight ^talk 16:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• And this edit is hardly helpful. :( --Durin 16:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User trying to impersonate me

CFlF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has signed up in an attempt to impersonate me. --CFIF ☎ 16:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• [86] doesn't indicate this user has been created. Did you mean another account? --Durin 16:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see the above...the account is CFlF, I fixed it. (CF lowercase L F) --CFIF ☎ 16:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked it. Mushroom (Talk) 16:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --CFIF ☎ 16:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism, AfD gaming: User:Michael Snow

I don't know why an editor this well-regarded would be doing something like this, but the evidence is just undeniable. Michael seems to have a feud going with User:Billy Blythe. Billy created an article on Mariju Bofill. Michael removed much of the article's text, claiming it was "unverifiable. [87] However, the information was verifiable simply by googling "Mariju Bofill" [88]; in fact, Google provides stronger evidence for notability than the article asserted. Michael then took the gutted article to AfD, claiming he had removed only "unverifiable" information. I don't know, I don't really care, if Mariju Bofill's article should be deleted. I do care that Michael is not presenting the facts of this accurately. I won't go quite as far as the AfD comment that called this "bad faith," but something here really stinks. VivianDarkbloom 19:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Certainly nothing you have described here merits the label 'vandalism'. Try using less loaded words. --Doc 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've verified and restored some of the content. But it is still a deletion candidate. --Doc 19:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong. This isn't the first time I've seen this on AfD, and it's dubious behavior at best. Especially given Michael's rather odd personal borderline attack on Billy as a stalker. (It looks more like the reverse.) VivianDarkbloom 20:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It might have been appropriate to have said "not verified" (which is a fact) rather than "unverifiable" (which is a surmise). However, it is up to an editor who wishes to retain material in an article to provide verification for it. Otherwise it can be removed. I realise this is only a part of the above discussion, but you might as well get this part cleared up. Then you can deal with the rest. Tyrenius 22:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism:User:ApolloBoy

Appoloboy is once again removing comments from talk pages that do not agree with his opinions. Perhaps it would serve wikipedia well to ban him for about six years, giving him time to grow up randazzo56 19:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Randazzo, perhaps your opinions and edits should be looked into more so than ApolloBoy's. How is this [89] WP:CIVIL? Or this [90]? Or this [91]? Metros232 19:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of admin powers

User:Caltrop blocked me for breaking the 3R rule during a dispute he was having with me at T-4 Euthanasia Program. Possibly I was in breach of 3R (I wasn't counting), but if I was, so was he. Furthermore, I had explained my reversion at the Talk page, to which he replied only with juvenile and ad hominem comments and made no attempt to engage with the issue. Finally I consider it most inappropriate for an admin to block an editor in a dispute to which they themselves are a party, and indeed largely initiated. I request that Caltrop be formally warned not to abuse his admin powers in this way. This is the first time in three years of editing that I have had occasion to complain about an admin. Adam 15:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a mistake on his part and you were unblocked because of it - but - [92] is highly innapropriate for you to say after you were unblocked. I would suggest that you remove that, as it serves no purpose other than to taunt him and rub the issue in his face (not to mention the header, which in itself is extremely incivil). Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 15:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I dare say. I have removed it. I don't deny I am very angry at this kind of stupid behaviour at an article on such a topic. Adam 15:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It might be a good idea to ask for third opinions from the village pump if you need help with the issues on that page. Cowman109^Talk 15:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no need for advice on the article itself. It's a lousy article and I intend rewriting it. What I needed help with was an abuse of admin powers. Since Caltrop has apologised I won't pursue this matter, but I still think he should not be an admin. Adam 01:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think advice would be welcome on this article. There are a lot of strong feelings here, a lot of "It must be my way or no way." I have asked for a RfC and welcome some external opinions at T-4 Euthanasia Program. Ifnord 18:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Jayjg

The recent edits of Jayjg (talk · contribs) need to be looked at. Today, he's really on a POV tear with regard to Israel-related articles. All these edits are dated today, August 18th.

• Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America - removed criticism of CAMERA by Nuclear Spin.[93]
• Honest Reporting - removed links to criticism and to related organizations.[94]
• International Academic Friends of Israel - removed links to related organizations [95]
• Chris McGreal - changed "several pro-Israel media watchdog organizations" to "several media watchdog organizations". (Jayjg puts substantial and ongoing effort into making McGreal look bad; see his edits.)[96]
• Engage (organization) - removed "See also" links to similar organizations [97]

The overall effect of these edits is to make various controversial pro-Israel organizations appear as neutral in Wikipedia. There really isn't much doubt that these organizations are pro-Israel; even the Israeli media admit it, and appropriate cites are in the articles, although it may be necessary to go back in the article history to find them after Jayjg's deletions.

Jayjg (and some others) have previously removed material that makes Israel looks bad when it wasn't properly cited. I accept that. But now he's escalated to removing material that is properly cited. That's a serious POV issue.

Jayjg has previously refused communication (see deletion of message from talk page [98]) and refused informal mediation.(Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-03_Mosaic:_World_News_from_the_Middle_East) Jayjg is also involved in the messy arbitration proceeding (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid), but that's in the voting phase and voting is tending towards an amnesty, so we can't add these actions to it. So I'd like to ask for a 24-hour block on Jayjg, permission to revert the above listed changes, and formal mediation. Thanks. --John Nagle 03:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be obvious to anyone who looks at these instances that they are nothing more than content disputes. I really can't see how John Nagle could think it is appropriate to block someone merely for disagreeing with him on a few articles. There is nothing that Jayjg did that is a clear violation of policy, or even an abstract violation of policy for that matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a straightforward content dispute. There are no policy violations and if John wants formal mediation, this isn't the place to request it. John, when I last checked out some of these pages, I recall you were engaged in an attempt to draw links between people and groups that struck me as original research. I don't know whether that continues, but looking briefly at some of Jay's edits, that may have been what he was resisting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a content dispute, but it's here because Jayjg is an admin and involved in an ArbComm proceeding. As part of the current arbitration, we currently have the proposed remedy, with six ArbComm votes, Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur. (Ref: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Proposed decision). I'd appreciate it if an admin who does not normally edit on Israel issues would look at this. Meanwhile, I'm trying to fix some of Jayjg's edits, dealing with his objections by using the "cited to death" style we now have to use in such articles and using cited direct quotes whenever possible. --John Nagle 17:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Three editors have now commented, and agree that this is an inappropriate complaint, because it's a regular content dispute. If you want mediation, by all means request it. Bear in mind, too, that edits can violate OR or be otherwise inappropriate even when cited. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the edits; to my mind Jayjg's edits improved the quality and neutrality of the articles. There's nothing to see here, move along please... Just zis Guy you know? 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• There's nothing here that calls even remotely for a block or anything resembling one. This is what article talk pages and article RFCs are for. Asking for a block for content disputes such as this demonstrates a misunderstanding of how consensus is achieved on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• John Nagle, the specific arbitration page, as well as 3rd opinion, RfC, and Mediation are that-a-way. El_C 18:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

John, it seems more reasonable to block you for consistent conspiracy-mongering and violations of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a muck-racking magazine, and you are supposed to be a neutral editor, not a crusading journalist. And by the way, your distortions about my actions match your consistent distortions in articles themselves. I haven't "refused communication"; as my Talk: page makes clear, if you want to discuss article content, do it on the related article content pages. Article content discussions are not personal communications. Also, I didn't refuse mediation, I just refused it from the self-appointed "Mediation Cabal" (which, in my experience, is singularly incompetent), and suggested you approach the Mediation Committee instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Perceived personal attacks by MONGO toward me.

Hello, would anyone be willing to review this? I have twice removed this personal attack, and MONGO has twice now put it back in place, despite my repeatedly asking him to either proove this or simply leave me alone and stop saying it. Often when I post now on various sections in the Wikipedia namespace he appears, and begins saying things like this. To me this is a personal attack, as I am not Wikistalking any admin, and any effort of my asking him to demonstrate this is simply met by "stop doing it". If I knew what exactly I was doing I'd be happy to stop that entailed wikistalking a given admin (which I'm not). MONGO also left a message on my talk page, notifying me I will be blocked if I "alter" his comments.

Never alter my comments...you will be blocked from editing if this happens one more time.--MONGO 06:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am reposting this here as there is no policy against reposting comments in this fashion. I feel the comments he has twice restored are a violation of WP:NPA, because he keeps doing it, but when asked to demonstrate what I'm doing that he considers wikistalking, he never will. Again, if another admin could review this--I really would rather be free to edit the encyclopedia without having MONGO staring over my shoulder, accusing me of shadow policy violations that apparently cannot be explained to me for some reason. Please review my contributions. If I'm apparently wikistalking someone, I cannot see it. I would also appreciate some clarification from other admins if it is against policy to remove messages or content of this nature. I am basing my removal on WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.

Tony Sidaway and other admins I have seen routinely make use of this, to remove comments that they themselves feel are of an attacking nature, and I feel I was within my bounds to do so. I am completely perplexed by this, as I've been collegially working with other admins, Tony included, on a policy proposal over the past week (and Tony is one of the ones he accused me of wikistalking on the talk page of the recent Kelly Martin RfC). I am starting to feel as if it is simply retribution as I voiced support opposite to his personal wishes previously in an AfD that he was eager to see closed off. Given the conflict of interest, I ask that MONGO not edit my comments here in any fashion so that other administrators may review them. rootology (T) 06:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the need to make criticisms of fellow admins on a third party's talk page? There are times and places to make constructive, or even moderately robust, criticisms of actions by other admins; there are other times and places where collegiality and discretion should prevail. From a quick look, I think that MONGO shows a pretty good sense of which is which. Sorry I can't help you. Metamagician3000 06:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at my User Talk contributions, I assume you mean this comment on Samuel Blanning's page? This was during the full absurd heat of the Kelly Martin RfC. I left a completely perplexed response on the conversation to Tony Sidaway there. I had been speaking with him extensively on the RfC, and both our tempers (Tony's and mine) had gotten it appeared a bit frayed. I did not "stalk" anyone there, as Sam's talk page was on my watchlist from a previous conversation I had with him. I was talking with Aaron Brenneman here, and I noted that Cyde had successfully agitated me during the course of working on a policy proposal at WP:RECALL by summarily dismissing my ideas during normal conversation. However, if you look through the comments and talk there (the exchange in question is now in one of the archives), on that proposal, I'd been civilly and collegially working with the very admin I'd been supposedly stalking, and many others. If this isn't what you're referring to I'm a bit lost, and I still don't see where or how I am wikistalking anyone which is my big concern and the basis of MONOG's attack on me. I should also point out that I'm taking MONGO's comments as an attack, as wikistalking is a bannable offense, and his unfounded allegations are to be honest troubling me. I think his allegations might be based on the fact that I tend to edit some articles related to politcal topics which he might be interested in, I don't know. rootology (T) 07:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

MONGO's statement is a personal attack. And I don't see MONGO providing any evidence of your alleged "wikistalking" or "dramatica". And then MONGO's revert removed your statement which was entirely a valid request for diffs. --HResearcher 07:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a personal attack, simply an observation. Rootology is disruptive and has been following myself and a number of other admins around, just as I stated.--MONGO 08:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to finally demonstrate for for me where and how I'm following you and the admins around, including diffs, beyond my one comment on Sam's page that was already on my watchlist from a previous conversation? If not, I ask you officially to stop making these incorrect statements about me in different venues, and the same for the ED stuff. If you have no proof, please stop. rootology (T) 16:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I strongly resent the fact you keep calling me disruptive. I'm no more vocal and outspoken (actually much less so, in some cases, and more polite in virtually all cases) than yourself, Ryan, and Cyde, the other admins who have also made that statement. I know you three disagree with my views, but labeling people as disruptive for being unafraid to disagree with an admin politely and vocally is rather funny. rootology (T) 17:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The harrassment comment is making a strong statement, but overall, I see no personal attack in what MONGO has written. ANI is a place where we speak freely, and if you bring forward cases, you should expect them to be discussed in this spirit. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. rootology (T) 16:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither of the statements that MONGO made were personal attacks. The statement that rootology is an ED editor is, iirc, something that rootology has stated in the past. Anyway, it's a simple factual statement, not an attack. Either it's accurate, or it's inaccurate. If you consider it to be damaging to have that information released, that's another matter, but it isn't a personal attack. As for harrassing people - that isn't a statement about who r. is, that's a statement about her/his actions. As such, it isn't a personal attack. Guettarda 14:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said I was anywhere on Wikipedia, I don't know where you're getting that. For the harassment and wikistalking, which is a blockable offense, I can then begin saying on various talk and wikipedia name space pages that MONGO or Guettarda is wikistalking me? Without any proof? I've asked MONGO to repeatedly demonstrate this with evidence or stop, but he has refused. Does that seem fair or right? Would I get a free pass as he has to make similar false comments? rootology (T) 16:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this has happened to me to, both by MONGO and by another admin. It comes down to a matter of intent; are these threats/accusations sincere, or are they just designed to intimidate and/or insult? An editor of any sort, especially admins, the "Face" of Wikipedia, who was making a good faith effort to halt a disruptive editors behavior would provide diffs, reasoning etc. so as to show that they are right and to cut off possible trolling by said editor (who would no longer have the "he's not telling me what I'm doing wrong" excuse). Then, if that editor were being disruptive unintentionally or without really realizing it/ admitting it to themself or whatever, that editor could review what is disruptive or harassment and could stop. Is an editor who gives out warning but is not only negligent, but unwilling to demonstrate what they are talking about, acting to help stave off disruption, or are they acting to insult or browbeat someone? (By the way, I check the ANI about once or twice a week lol) Karwynn (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RPA is a bad idea, and NPA is a bad idea, too

• This is just more evidence of what a rotten idea these two proposals are. We now have to spend our time getting out the scales and putting this comment in one pan and our own personal "insult" weight in the other and try to agree (or, much worse, leave it to the individual receiving the comments) that something is or isn't a personal attack. We have to spend our time doing this instead of resolving the dispute or concentrating on the question behind the curtain: is this disruption or disagreement? What a ridiculous pursuit!
• Then we get to RPA -- a "semi-policy" drafted by someone who wanted counter-arguments to disappear and who wanted accusations to go away. Oh, we'll keep garbage in an article history eternally. We'll keep vandalism in the history forever. However, the delicate flowers among our administrative ranks should be able to hide and annihilate something that is personally ill fitting? To hell with that. More to the point, we grind to a halt again while we try to consider "was that an insult bad enough to remove? should it have been just removed or archived?" What a ridiculous idea! This is what trolls do: they get sites to talk about themselves instead of whatever their function had been. They make things grind to a halt. Well, that's what these two things do.
• If there is a question of disruption, let's bring it up. If there is a need for mediation, let's get it going. If there is a need for an RFC, then let's kick start it. Let's not navel gaze and try to fix the mercury of insults. Geogre 12:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think NPA is a good idea, we should all be civil to each other. Editing comments of other users is a really really bad idea in almost any case, tho, and so is RPA. Otherwise, I totally agree with everything you said. --Conti|✉ 14:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't want to appear to even hint that I'm even suggesting a hint that I support incivility. It's just that codifying in the way we sort-of have is distracting from actually patrolling and considering and acting on those cases where we have disruption. I have a tendency to use ink horn terms and be "eloquent." Now, I can say nasty things to someone in the most circuitous manner, and I can get them so angry that they're doing no good. No "PA?" That's the thing. We used to assess disruptiveness, not ego attacks. We should still. We also needn't have some "insult of X severity = sanction of Y duration." We're humans, and that means we're smarter than any codification because, in the end, we always have to do the interpreting. Let's talk together, act together, and work together. Anyway, just some exasperation on my part. Geogre 14:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that drowning ourselves in policy is a bad idea. Causing people to become upset is also a bad idea, as is administrators setting a bad example. So let's *ommm* concentrate on our humanity and be courteous and forgiving and assuming good faith. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

People have wildly different opinions of what is and is not a 'personal attack' or 'uncivil'... but I think it is clear to everyone that what we have here is not cordial disagreement with everyone respecting their fellow editors. That's not good for Wikipedia and ought to be a sign to take a step back until you can be polite again. --CBD 18:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MONGOs threat to block me

Was this an appropriate threat? As RPA is a disputed policy, I would like to ask fior approval from at least one admin to remove (not archive) what I feel is out of bounds/beyond policy warning on my page, without having to worry about a retributive block from MONGO. rootology (T) 16:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

How is that a personal attack? He is questioning the manner in which he percieves you operate, not attacking you personally. Now, you may dispute the factual basis of the assertion and demand evidence, that's one thing, but not use RPA to de facto censor the comment. El_C 18:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy barring the removal of comments from one's user talk page. In some instances this may be considered 'hostile' if the comment is removed without response where one would be expected, or 'deceptive' if possibly removing warnings to hide evidence of past misbehaviour in an effort to continue getting away with it. However, those are generally minor issues of civility and there is certainly nothing which would justify a block for removal of comments. Editing of comments to change the apparent statements of another user is another matter entirely and generally prohibited except in the case of 'removing personal attacks'... though as you note even then it is a disputed practice. Looking at this particular situation I don't see any way that removal of MONGO's threat could be problematic... it clearly does not expect a response and removing it doesn't hide any 'past misdeed' on your part. Threats aren't exactly WP:CIVIL and I can't imagine anyone would seriously argue that you should be required to host them on your talk page. --CBD 18:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer the question, have you read the comment? (Yes.) Then it's your talk page. This type of warning isn't really in the "warning sock puppet" or other warning designed for other people to read. It was a message directed to you and not a tag, so, if you've read it, you should be free to delete it. No RPA involved. Geogre 18:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, no, it doesn't matter if it is or isn't a tag, please please don't talk crazy! (ZOMG NPA RPA and block me for egregious implication of insanity, and block me some more for saying egregious!) There is no virtue of irremoveability in a tag. Posting a tag doesn't require or guarantee any more understanding of policy, or good judgement, or good faith, or good sense, or restraint, than posting a self-formulated warning--less, if anything. Please don't encourage the notion that it's inevitably vandalism to remove a tag, and that if you post a tag you're free to edit war to force the person to display your wonderful untouchable tag on their page for ever and a day. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

I was "warning" rootology not to alter my comments...the comments I didn't want him to alter were made by me here, at AN/I...I don't care if he did remove the warning I gave to him on his own talkpage, but it just looks like he's covering up the warning by doing so.--MONGO 05:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we agree! I was just systematically knocking down all the reasons someone might cite for not being able to remove a comment. As El C, that personal attacker, says, "Who is objecting to that removal?" I was trying to figure out why anyone would. Now me, I think tagging is what graffiti artists do, but some people treat tags as if they were sacred ornaments to be born for all eternity. Geogre 02:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'm refering to RPA enacted on ANI, not on a talk page. El_C 18:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was/is that he was asking about his talk page. --CBD 18:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Still unclear to me. Where was the pertinent diff cited (above)? El_C 19:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

He was asking about this, I guess, in "appropriate threat?." That's on his user talk page and is a message, not the kind of warning given that shouldn't be removed. He can delete it, if he wants, so long as he has read and understands it. Geogre 20:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is objecting to that removal? It's a nonissue; the issue is misuse of RPA to censor criticism. El_C 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Misuse of RPA?" I don't think there is a proper use of RPA, myself. Geogre 12:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, [PA removed!], I've seen one of my favourite heroines, the always-delightful Bishonen, implement it rather successfuly. El_C 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it used skillfully, and as within the law as is possible, but removing insane ravings and removing personal attacks are a different matter. I saw her do the former, not the latter. Geogre 02:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For the record...

...keep up the good work, Mongo. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...I usually say what I mean, and mean what I say.--MONGO 04:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RubberJoshy

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

At a quick glance, I get the feeling that all his edits are hoaxes, but I don't have the time or energy to research British or Bulgarian TV shows right now. Help? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've asked User:TodorBozhinov to take a look. Jkelly 23:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

He's been creating pages getting speedied for one reason or another left and right. I've blocked him for three hours to try to staunch the flow of nonsense; I'd appreciate if someone else took a look, made sure I wasn't on crack, and (probably) indef'd him. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Most definately B.S. He's putting the name Josh Carter all over the place as an actor, game designer and even a football player. The account hasn't done anything else, indef seems warranted. Shell ^babelfish 23:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Claiming an affair with Jim Davidson, being creators of tv programmes all whilst being 16/17 years old.... --pgk^(talk) 23:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also see User talk:Josh Carter who I guess is now autoblocked as a result... --pgk^(talk) 23:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've indefed RubberJoshy; what's the right thing to do about the User:Josh Carter account? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done a 24 hr block on User:Josh Carter to let us consider things. That user (too?) had been vandalizing in an highly juvenile manner. He added himself to the births of his birthday, and he made a G1 (even if true) "footballer" article. He marked all of these (including page creation!) as "minor edits." Then he goes and creates a second account? This all when brand new? Uhhhhh. I've rolled back his spurious edits and invite others to throw a longer block at him. Geogre 12:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What a pain. Josh Carter's edits (at least the surviving ones) were all *after* the block on RubberJoshy; I'm not sure how he escaped the autoblocker so quickly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably got home from the LAN party at his friend's house. I've left him a welcome and an explanation, since it may not be obvious to him why his edits weren't accepted, much less why he got blocked in his new incarnation. Rich Farmbrough 22:35 20 August 2006 (GMT).

There is nothing wrong with welcomes and explanations, but, honestly, I can't imagine how someone would add his birth to the date page and write up articles about his buddies as "footballers" and be surprised that the edits were rejected. It's like warning vandals: I really can't see how the "is gay" vandal is going to not understand why he got blocked. (Yeah...I know...the warnings are for future interactions and not really for the user. Still....) Geogre 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Faith assumed

Sue Anne and myself had a discussion yesterday regarding about my edits to an Apprentice article and based on these two inputs on my talk page ([109], [110]), I am going to have to take it as having either bad or no faith on myself whatsoever. Out of bad faith Sue Anne unloaded her harsh criticism on me, and after trying to battle it out during my sleep, I am going to have to take it as Sue Anne either having negative and/or no faith in me whatsoever. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 14:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe i shouldnt ask but could you show me where she has shown any bad faith? From my quick look to me it looks like she is trying to help you. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 14:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Matt, expect a message from myself shortly — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 14:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You should really post it here so others can see. Ok, maybe you are offended but to my knowledge opinions are allowed and Sue Anne hasnt really been uncivil towards you has she.. she has tried to help you and while your style may differ she is trying to get you to use the style a concensous agrees on. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Matt, the reason why I had to let you know about this privately is because obviously, Sue Anne does not like the way I edit things, and judging from her comments, only assumes bad faith in me. As much as I can, I try to assume good faith, but the weight of Sue Anne's comments were in a word too harsh. I really have to contest the capitalization style at another discussion since I really disagree with a lot of editors regarding about capitalization guidelines, namely when it comes to bulleting. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm putting up with my beef (See my beef here) regarding about capitalization style at the discussion located at Manual of Style (Capital Letters) — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sue Anne's comments seem to have been with respect to content rather than to contributor and seem not to have imputed bad faith to Vesther's edits but simply to have imputed a lack of appreciation for WP:NPOV or WP:OR; her conduct seems to have been, IMHO, altogether fine and quite courteous. Joe 18:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Objection to your comment Joe, I read the comments and it appears that Sue Anne's comments were overly harsh, and considering that it's too harsh, I have no choice but to stay my course and consider that Sue Anne has either little or no faith whatsoever. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 01:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but someone has to ask: So? Assuming bad faith, if it were possible to know someone else's assumptions, is a noticeboard matter how? Content disputes are not for AN/I. Warm fuzzies vs. cold pricklies are even less an AN/I matter. Geogre 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I suppose the assumption of bad faith is not exclusively a content issue, but Geogre is nevertheless correct; if the behavior by which Vesther is troubled persists, surely another editor will intervene, in view of which an RfC might be pursued (although, FWICT, this is really much ado about a trifle). Joe 22:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Vesther, I think you've misunderstood what "assume good faith" means. It means that we should assume that our fellow users are contributing with the best of intentions, even when we think their contributions are inappropriate or substandard. Sue might have judged your contributions harshly, but she hasn't assumed bad faith unless she has accused you of inappropriate motives for your contributions. Has Sue commented on your motives for contributing to Wikipedia? He she, for example, accused you of deliberately vandalising Wikipedia? Of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Of contributing material for the purposes of enhancing your income or reputation? Has she in some other way implied that you are not here to improve the encyclopaedia? If not, then this dispute has nothing to do with good or bad faith. Snottygobble 01:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I brought it up was because of the beef she had about the way I capitalize things (see my beef here), as my ways of capitalizing is much different than others. I really disagree with the capitalization conventions for this website as of right now. That is my first beef. The second beef I have is as much as I tried to make an article "The Apprentice 4" as presentable as I can, Sue Anne hates the style of my edits. I try to be very careful and cautious about my edits so that it wouldn't go off-topic, but the fact that Sue Anne disliked my edits really made me deduce that she has no faith in me whatsoever. I hope that this answers your question. I made sure that all of my edits are within the rules, but the fact that Sue Anne detests the way I edited the page made me assume that she went way over the line, hence "editor killer" in this case. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 02:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems to evince the same confusion of which Snotty meant, I think, to disabuse you. There is, IMHO, a difference between a user's assuming bad faith of and a user's having no faith in a contributor. Neither, of course, is particularly propitious, but whilst the former focuses on the contributor, the latter focuses on content. There surely are editors who, for various reasons, contribute in a fashion that is sometimes avolitionally disruptive—users, for example, who aren't particularly comfortable with English, such that they might be of great assistance with the rough translation of articles from other wikis but not with the cleaning up of grammar and syntax in those articles—and it is not unreasonable for other users to pay special attention to the edits of such editors (because the purpose is encyclopedic, this is not, to be sure, Wikistalking). Whether a user's edits improve the encyclopedia is one thing (here, a style/content issue for which you might want to seek a WP:3O), but whether he/she means to improve the encyclopedia (and is willing to collaborate rather than to be categorically contumacious) is quite another. Joe 06:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam from User:Knowledge for All

Said user (contributions) has engaged in adding inappropriate external links referring to http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org to many articles. Is there an easy way to revert these en masse? --Lambiam^Talk 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to all use Special:Linksearch to check for all web links. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christine Jennings "slander"

See the diff at [111] and what I have said on the user's talk page. I'm not sure if this is being dealt with; I initially reported it at WP:AIV as I was unsure where to report it. --Jim (Talk) 22:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone that has some sort of an interest in any article should refrain from editing the entry. However, the section was unsourced, if it's true just plug sources in an encylopedic manner. Yanksox 23:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP is registered to "(static-72-77-130-61.tampfl.dsl-w.verizon.net.) AS19262 VZGNI-TRANSIT Verizon Global Networks". Tampa, FL is not part of Florida's 13th congressional district, leading me to doubt the accuracy of this report. alphaChimp ^laudare 23:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that it matters; it was unsourced material in a biography of a living person that was intended to lead the reader to think that the subject of our article was an anti-Semite. Who gets credit for removing it doesn't strike me as particularly interesting. Jkelly 23:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As it turns out, the IP adress that initially added the information was 24.28.30.104, which is registered to 242830hfc104.tampabay.res.rr.com, so it looks like it may well have been politically motivated in the first place. Another multi-millionaire in congress is bad enough in my book, anti-Semitic or not, and the article already includes this information ;P --Jim (Talk) 23:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be very cautious about any derogatory information about a living person, and certainly remove on sight any such material which does not have a cast iron verifiable reference. Tyrenius 01:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit comment on Windows Mobile page history

Please remove the comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Mobile&diff=70751273&oldid=70608195 from Bonsai8 - which is me. It simply states a user keeps deleting links. The comment is true, but could be considered a personal attack and therefore should not be there.

I'm sorry, I'm rather busy on something else at the moment: could you please post your request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and someone else should be able to take care of it there. -- The Anome 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Done, and thanks. -- Bonsai8

[edit] open proxies

It is possible to use wikipedia.7val.com (see Wikipedia:WAP access ) ip-range 87.79.3.* (?) (i only tried 87.79.3.253 and 87.79.3.249) as an open proxy on every wikipedia (all languages). Aleichem 00:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Rangeblocked 87.79.3.0/24 indef as open proxy. Naconkantari 00:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

But still possible on other wiki's [112] Aleichem 00:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See m:WM:OP. --Zsinj^Talk 01:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long AfD

• Just wondering when this AfD would be closed. -- pm_shef 00:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Closed by Mackensen (9 days). Tyrenius 01:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of long discussions, this one was originally opened on August 5, before being extended on August 11. Maybe it needs a look at too. Ansell 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Closed ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mikedk9109

Personal attack edit summaries, 3RR, vandalism. Please block indef along with his IP which is in the history of his talkpage. ForestH2 t/c 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked, 1 Week (not by me) alphaChimp ^laudare 01:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure a week is enough. he claims he's retired but he's stayed around to edit war on his talk page, and the personal attacks and incivility he spewed on the way out the door was a bit excessive.--Crossmr 02:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I've suggested indef. and I suggest arbitration. ForestH2 t/c 02:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I was the blocking admin. I have no issue extending it to an indefinite block. Per the blocking policy the IP can be blocked for any arbitrarily large finite time, but not indefinite. JoshuaZ 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

O.K. But if he returns and vandalizes.....ForestH2 t/c 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say block the username indef. There was excessive hatred and profanity. Keep an eye on the IP, give him a week to cool it off, if the IP comes back and continues, report it to the vandalism or AN/I and have him dealt with then. I still feel the talk page should be restored. He's obviously trying to hide his behaviour and if it comes up again (via the ip or a sockpuppet) I'd like to see an easy reference point, rather than trying ot look through multiple versions of a talk page to get the whole story.--Crossmr 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts. ForestH2 t/c 02:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

(Accidentally posted this two sections below for the wrong mike!) The user was blocked for a week and he now says he has left Wikipedia. He requested that people stop editing his talk page as courtesy (as they were repeatedly adding old warnings), so I deleted the page and full protected it. The user has access to an IP account that he was using that he could use to request the page unprotected, but there doesn't seem like there will be much need for that. The user seems to want to use his m:Right to vanish, so I'm letting him unless anyone objects with that. Cowman109^Talk 02:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really feel its a right to vanish, and I don't think that should be used in a case where you have a person lashing out with multiple personal attacks, hate and profanity. He made his bed and now he has to lie in it. Turning and going "yeah I attacked a bunch of people, but now I want to disappear so lets all forget it happened" doesn't fly with me. I'd be more inclined to buy that if he departed without incident.--Crossmr 02:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Other users have thought about arbitration for him by the way but there's no point doing that now he's left. He'll be back after his block is done, I expect. ForestH2 t/c 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If he's back after his block, he can edit other pages to contest the protection as well (he was abusing his talk page privileges anyway), in which case I will undelete the page. Cowman109^Talk 02:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If he his back after his block I would expect the talk page to be undeleted and the warnings and other content restored immediately as it would be rather obvious that he was lying about retiring. --Crossmr 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You've stated that. ForestH2 t/c 02:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This user- 7 people have had disputes with him. He is reverting to his own revisions which are vandalism. He's vandalised many articles; and is removing warnings. He always seems to get away with whatever he does, and he refuses to take other points of view; and he doesn't like any users; because they all think he vandalizes which he does. Could someone please interfere? ForestH2 t/c 18:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind he just left Wiki. ForestH2 t/c 18:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of first hand of this user's conduct on wikipedia. He has made several controversial edits on the wikipedia talk page which upset a lot of people, and he is unwilling to compromise. Recently he has got rid of very important tons of very information from an article and no matter what I said or how much I tried to compromise, this user wasn't having any of it. Finally, I gave in and let him have his own way because disputing with someone so unreasonable for 3 or 4 months is exhausting. Apart from vandalism and lack of good ability to come to an agreement, Mike doesn't get along well with others. In fact, I have even tried to be nice in my dealings with him but he is very rude on top of everything else. Tonetare 19:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

retired or not [113] edit summary is out of line, and the talk page should be restored. If he wants to retire, do it wtih an indef block as well for the behaviour--Crossmr 19:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quasar

An edit war has been in progress at Quasar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), with Lengis (talk • contribs) repeatedly inserting material that has been reverted by at least three other editors (including myself). No useful source for the changes has been presented, despite repeated attempts to explain what sources are useful in this context. (Two sources were cited; one was an anti-evolution site, and one was a textbook published in 1983, which by nature overlooked the last 20+ years of research into the subject). At this point, administrator intervention seems to be required. --Christopher Thomas 01:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, it seems likely that User:Lengis has also been editing as User:Malamockq... -- ChrisO 08:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's quite possible, but unless the multiple accounts are used for nefarious purposes (vote-stacking or the like), there isn't grounds for a checkuser, if I understand WP:SOCK correctly. --Christopher Thomas 15:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Add 64.236.245.243 (talk • contribs), for edits to a similar range of articles to the other two users over a similar timeframe. --Christopher Thomas 17:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: User:Malamockq identified the IP contribution as his/her own (diff). --Christopher Thomas 17:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Residual effects in CAT:Speedy from vandalism to Template:USPoliticalDivisions

An anonIP added as speedy tag to the template {{USPoliticalDivisions}}. As a result, the many articles that included the template (including all of the U.S. states) had a speedy delete added — which made them appear in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. The edit has since been reverted. However, at least for me, the resulting affected articles still are showing up in the category. I've cleared my cache, and purged the server cache. Any advice? — ERcheck (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's happening to me, too. I suggest we just wait, since we've done all we can do. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that the state pages do not show that they are included in the category? Is that an internal Mediawiki issue? Ansell 02:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I was seeing state pages, Category:Subdivisions of the United States, and Category:Insular areas of the United States showing up. Now they seem to be cleared, at least for me. Looks like Mr. Lefty's advice to wait was good advice. — ERcheck (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The m:Help:job queue is extremely high right now. (90000) Any changes which effect a large number of pages may be slow to 'update.' See Special:Statistics for the current number. Kevin_b_er 04:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PoolGuy sockpuppet

FolkWriterUp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) There's a new PoolGuy sockpuppet as indicated by this apparent confession. [114] I can't say I'm familiar with what got PoolGuy banned, so I turn this over to the community. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you move this to WP:AE. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? He was community banned, not arbcom banned. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Naconkantari 02:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] apparent 'vandalism only' account

The user User:Sekort Sev Lewt has been active for only a few days, but seems to be used only for vandalism. I've posted a test-2 warning, but all of this user's edits (except possibly one) are vandalism and/or nonsense. Special-T 03:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Temporary block issued. — ERcheck (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I.M. Rich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Propose indefblock for repeated grave homophobic outbursts [115] [116] [117] [118], endemic incivility [119] [120], and threats of disruption [121]. Earlier indefblocked by Samir on June 22, subsenquently shortened, but lesson not learned. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I defended him after the previous indefinite block (for death threats). It was reduced to 48 hours on the presumption that he would change his ways. Nothing has changed and he's now threatening Wikipedia. I'd endorse an indef (or very long term) block. alphaChimp ^laudare 03:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

He's been indef blocked. Especially with the past history, it is highly appropriate at this time. -- Natalya 03:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for following policy, no discussion from the blocking admin

Administrator User:William M. Connolley blocked me last week for following WP:BLP. I was removing poorly sourced material from a biography of a living person and was blocked for it even though WP:BLP states such removals are exempt from 3RR. I did make some mistakes, but I thought it unfair for Connolley to just block me without word from him to discuss it first. He also did not notify me of the block until an hour after the block. --HResearcher 06:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

HR, did you declare in advance that you were reverting under the BLP provision (did you wave your white BLP flag, in other words?), and was the material negative and arguably defamatory? A link would help. This is a new policy so there are bound to be some teething troubles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I found it and see it's been deleted. I can read the article but I can't view diffs once it's deleted, so I can't tell what the particular edit was (and if it was perhaps defamatory, please don't repeat it here). I can see in general that it had to do with using Usenet as a source. That would depend whether it was negative material, whether it was written by the subject, and so on. Generally, we don't use Usenet as a source (see WP:V, but that wouldn't necessarily allow you to revert under BLP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response SlimVirgin. The article was deleted then recreated, so the diff's are unavailable. I'm assuming this was done to prevent legal problems, as now there's no evidence remaining. Note that the new version that was "recreated" was drastically cleaned up and then protected. Generally, and others agree on this including a comment from Fred Bauder about one of the editors, the page was being composed and used as an attack page by a couple of users. One of the users was the one who reported my "violation" of 3RR. I did wave the white flag, but was ignored. Blocked without discussion from the admin, and then a notice I'd been blocked an hour later. Instead I got a note from the admin saying that BPL "isn't a get out of jail free card". If William Connolly would have said something to me first, at least I would have had a chance to understand what I was doing wrong because I thought I was helping Wikipedia by removing poorly sourced claims. I did make a few mistakes by removing things that were sourced and I restored those before I was blocked, but one of the users using the page as an attack page used my deletion/restoration against my instead of assuming good faith. --HResearcher 08:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A pedantic point I know, but the deletion does not mean there is no evidence remaining, it means the evidence is restricted to admins. Otherwise you are right: the patern for WP:BLP / WP:OFFICE deletions is that the article is deleted, a stub created, and then new content may or may not be added with thorough sourcing, depending on the nature of the complaint and indeed the complainant. WP:3RR is pretty much automatic, so it's understandable if someone missed the BLP flag. Did you add {{unblock}} to your Talk page? I'm guessing it would have been sorted quite quickly, and you clearly understand why this BLP a particular problem and people tend to err on the side of caution. Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by a simple cock-up. William is not the sort of guy to go around blocking at random. Just zis Guy you know? 16:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I used the {{unblock}}. In response got a rather rude comment from William about a "get out of jail free card"[122] instead of any opportunity for discussion. Note, that after my application of BLP, it seems Fred Bauder applied WP:OFFICE, so I don't think I should have been blocked. I guess if Fred Bauder didn't have such a high ranking in Wikipedia, William Connolley would have blocked Fred too. --HResearcher 05:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been given absolutely no information to go on. You haven't even provided the name of the article to which your editing precipitated your blocking. You need to help me help you. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It was the Barbara Schwarz article. Thank you. --HResearcher 05:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh God, Scientology .... must run like hell. --Cyde Weys 05:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I don't get it... --HResearcher 05:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I heard that people--allegedly people in the church--targetted the article to make it into an attack page. Anomo 07:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true - she's not a member of the CoS. What's certainly true, though, is that the subject of the page (Ms. Schwarz herself) has had to be indefinitely blocked for repeated gross violations of other users' privacy - outing them, basically. She's now taken to posting rants on Usenet against Fred Bauder, myself and other editors, and Wikipedia in general. Actually it's quite amusing : "Wikipedia or better Wikipiggi is a destructive cult. ... Wikipedia violates my rights and can't take any critic. They deleted my Wikipedia postings. Wikipedia is a defaming anti-free speech cult, similar as STASI and the KGB. It is anti-American and anti-constitutional. Even Congress is fed up with them. Wikipedia is above the U.S. Constitution and laws." 'Wikipiggi' is kind of cute - anyone for a Wikipiggi plushie? :-) -- ChrisO 07:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually that sounds like a good idea, oddly enough. A little mascot for sale on cafepress - "I'm just a pig for knowledge!" or some similar cheesy slogan... plushies are nice. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the earlier discussion here violated WP:WOTTA btw, but looks like I missed the moment now.

I guess HResearcher is unblocked already. Probably (s)he should go talk with William Connoly a bit, if (s)he hasn't already done so. Kim Bruning 15:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting and protecting from re-creation

Some nitwits keep creating Ballyclainmarinygwymystradffoldnewrycloghernewtownkennedy, an obviously nonsensical hoax. The thing to do is surely to delete it and protect it from re-creation. Perhaps my brain isn't firing on all cylinders this evening, but I can't see a way to do it. I know there's a template for use here, but can't find it and can't think of a non-article where I've seen it, so can't steal it. Therefore as a short-term remedy I protected this stupid article and simply blanked it: no explanatory template, no nothing. Could some more experienced admin tell me what I should do, or of course do it for me? Thanks. -- Hoary 10:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

PS, oh, somebody has now deleted it. (That was fast!) OK, but now the multiple-sockpuppet nitwit will swiftly re-create it. -- Hoary 10:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Errr.... no-one stops me!!! I will keep re-creating deleted pages! --Shanel 10:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (actually User:FireBallOfGreece) - the wub "?!" 10:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Troll since blocked. --Doc 10:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Check again. {{deletedpage}} is the template you were looking for. the wub "?!" 10:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked some of the socks (one creates a page, somebody else then AfDs it, both do penis vandalism on talk pages). Kusma (討論) 10:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne High School

Apparently "semi protected" but I've just reverted an edit by an IP? --Nigel ^(Talk) 11:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

never been protected.Geni 11:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, take a look at this edit [123]. It was just a user slapping the semi-protect tag on there. Metros232 11:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't spot it, sorry & thanks for the swift response - cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 11:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 203.10.224.59 (talk · contribs)

I just thought I'd bring this user to the attention of the administrators. He has repeatedly made abusive edits to the Rockstar Games Presents Table Tennis article. He has made the same edit each time - 27 July 2006 31 July 2006 4 Aug 2006 10 Aug 2006 15 Aug 2006 21 Aug 2006.

All his other contributions (that I've looked at) have actually appeared to be beneficial to Wikipedia though and he's reverted vandalism on other articles quite a few times, which confuses me. There are several warnings on his talk page and he doesn't appear to have listened to them. This is the first time someone's irritated me enough to report them, so I'm not sure how long I'd recommend he be blocked for, I'll leave that to the admins. HK51 11:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You might check to see if that IP is familiar with three revert rule and if they're not then put a {{subst:3RR}} warning on their talk page. Outside of that advice reporting this type of problem is left to the 3RR noticeboard. (→Netscott) 13:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I spoke a bit late as User:Samuel Blanning has blocked this IP for vandalism. Still 3RR would apply here as well. (→Netscott) 13:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User 12.156.158.79

User 12.156.158.79 has made 6 deletions on the JetBlue page within 2 minutes total. The page is now almost empty. Request blocking of said IP. Thank you. --Neo16287 16:30 21 August 2006 (UTC)

He hadn't received any warnings, so I gave him a first-level one. Blocks should only be performed if the user has vandalized after receiving his last warning. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:WikiWoo

Once again I have blocked WikiWoo (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for creating articles like Public Procurement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Prequalified (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and for edits like this [124] to mainspace when the latter was nominated for deletion. Comments welcome, review, extend, shorten, etc. Frankly I'm sick of him. Just zis Guy you know? 18:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable block to me. A quick look at Talk:Public Procurement shows pretty clearly that WikiWoo is soapboxing here. Friday (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that's some first-class POV-pushing going on. The block is appropriate. Gwernol 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:PresidentClinton

Unless Bill Clinton has a lot of time on his hands and has taken up editing Wikipedia as his new hobby, this is clearly an inappropriate username. Atlant 18:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Impeached --Doc 19:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

At least one of his contributions suggests that this may not be the user's first account. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Any sign of interns being involved? -- ChrisO 20:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

He's username blocked, and I've left him free to create another account. But that one is only going to cause him trouble. --Doc 20:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for the fast action. And the humo(u)r!

Atlant 22:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protect Body Count

An anon who lost out on an AfD of a related article in now trying to continually insert incorrect info on a non-existent album into Body Count & Body Count (album). Might we get a temporary semi-protect to disuade our anon friend from his daily reverts?

• Done. Let me know when this is settled (or in 3 days, whichever comes first) so I can lift the protection at that time. --Improv 19:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass of redirects on August 10, 2006 alleged transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot

Could someone please take a look at the what links here for this article. It appears a move/rename war has been going on for the last couple of days. The result is about a dozen redirects being left behind with nothing pointing to them. Not weighing in on the name itself, but it would be very kind if some admin could speedy out some of the leftover redirects. Otherwise, I'm afraid I'll have to spend a half hour building the mother of all WP:RfD entries. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 20:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My advice is to leave the redirects until the dust settles and a name is achieved by consensus. Joelito (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. The redirects in question were apparently added in the past as a sort of pre-emptive strike in case anyone wanted to link to anything remotely similar. No damage in removing them. Maury 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dposse and Snakes on a Plane

Earlier, User:Dposse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was involved in an edit war on Snakes on a Plane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Yanksox declined my request for full protection at WP:RFPP, citing a concern that the article may soon be linked from the main page. While Dposse's sparring partner appears to have taken a breather, Dposse has now reinserted a pretty indisputably fair-use-infringing screenshot into the article. Would someone mind looking into this? I'm not sure whether he needs to be blocked or warned, or what policy justifies either. Thanks. —ptk✰fgs 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dposse was also reported on WP:3RR for excessive amounts of reverts on that article. Metros232 21:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted Image:IMDBchart.JPG for failing Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. It was a screenshot acting as a malformed {{cite web}}. Jkelly 21:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date warring

I am somewhat bothered by the way that SuperJumbo (talk · contribs) seems to have unilaterally decided to reformat dates. As I understand it, there is a longstanding semi-formal agreement that in articles dealing with things outside of the English-speaking world, we don't particularly favor U.S. or Commonwealth style on dates; instead, we wikify and let the software format it to the users' preferences. Hence, edits like these ([125], [126]) are at least mildly annoying. Tazmaniacs (talk · contribs) reversion of these ([127], [128]) was, of course, almost inevitable; but what I really don't like is what comes next: Superjumbo using popups ([129] [130]) to revert. The navigation tools are not intended as utilities for edit warring. - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Jmabel to be, on the whole, correct (the issue ought, IMHO, for unwikified dates, to be treated as is AE/BE by the MoS, which treatment WP:DATE seems to suggest), but if I'm not crazy almost all of the dates over which edit-warring has occurred here are wikified, such that, for registered users (who necessarily, IIRC, make a date preference election), that which displays will not be affected; aren't most of these edits purposeless? Joe 05:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is a non–issue, I'm afraid. Go to your "my preferences" and change your dating format preference from "No preference" (or "15 January 2000") to "January 15, 2000", and all dates that he "re-formatted" will appear as you have selected. His changing of these dates is pointless as any one user can select preference for one of these methods over the other. That's why this preference selection was created. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` [discl.]} 05:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be a non-issue if and only if people like SuperJumbo didn't unilaterally change dates to match their personal preference. The "preference selection" was designed to prevent such changes by rendering them pointless. No one thought anyone would be so silly as to go on a jihad to convert dates to his "preferred preference" just in order to have non-logged in users see them, but obviously we didn't reckon on how bellicose people can be in insisting you adopt their whims as default. But that is the argument he offered when I objected to him converting all articles relating to Monaco to day-month-year. - Nunh-huh 06:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why it matters. It might be pointless for him to do this, but why would anyone go to the trouble of reverting it? He has wikified so that it will appear as per whatever preference users have adopted. If people don't have accounts or haven't logged in, I don't think they'll suffer greatly if the date appears the way he prefers in the articles he's edited. Or am I missing something here? Metamagician3000 07:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the fact that it's fundamentally disrespectful to insist on having one's own way in what is supposed to be a cooperative or at least collegial editing environment. When you change "color" to "colour" or "haemophilia" to "hemophilia", it annoys people because you are insisting "their" way is wrong and your way is right. It's the same with dates. If it doesn't, or shouldn't, matter, then it shouldn't be changed. You should have the decency to leave de minimus matters alone, and respect other's choices, rather than privileging your own. If you don't, you encourage edit wars, ill-feeling, and distract from the business of writing an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 07:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand all that, I guess. I still don't understand why it matters so much, given what the outcome actually is for users of the encyclopedia. If someone changed the way I had the dates (but wikified them properly) I would smile at their relatively harmless idiosyncracy rather than thinking this was terribly important or needed to be dealt with by admins. It seems that any disruption is de minimus. Oh well, maybe another admin will take a greater interest in it. Metamagician3000 08:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

SuperJimbo wikified the dates so that date preferences are enabled. Tazmaniac's blind reversion de-wikified the dates. I agree we shouldn't edit war over which date style is the default, but all dates should have date preferences enabled when possible. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-18 08:16Z

Eh, no SuperJimbo changed, for example, [[November 11]], [[1942]] (November 11, 1942) to [[11 November]] [[1942]] (11 November 1942) — both formats are valid and display dates as per the user preferences. It was a pointless edit. Thanks/wangi 08:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted a good number of his changes and warned him that if he does this again he will be blocked. We have a policy in place that warns against doing this for a very good reason. --Cyde Weys 13:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming in late to this discussion, but may I suggest that rather than edit warring, and reverting all of my careful work, people take a moment to read the guidelines laid down in WP:MoS? I'll thank Cyde to go and undo his reverts, and request that in future he discuss before acting against consensus.

I quote from the Manual of Style:

If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually [[17 February]] [[1958]] (no comma and no "th"). In the United States and Canada, it is [[February 17]], [[1958]]. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.

Using this as a guide, I suggest that Cyde's changes to the King Edward VIII article were insufficiently considered, to be polite. --Jumbo 22:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, can you promise to confine yourself to topics that clearly relate to the UK, etc., and to UN agencies? Maybe you're already doing this, but that's not clear to me. You should give that undertaking and stick to it. I think that talk of blocking is overreacting as long as your activities are so confined. I still think is all a bit of storm in a teacup, but I suppose what you're doing could be irritating if it's not clearly confined to appropriate articles. Metamagician3000 22:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My actions have been in accordance with the Manual of Style throughout. Jtdirl, an expert on style, and familiar with the precise history of dating conventions in Wikipedia, has seen fit to comment on several occasions:

• On my talk page
• On Nunh-hunh's talk page
• On the talk page for Prince Rainier III

I would appreciate it if participants in this discussion would familiarise themselves with the consensus guidelines before commenting and proffering advice. --Jumbo 23:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly your interpretation of the MOS is at odds with others equally "expert". You have no consensus to make the changes you are making and have resisted suggestions that you actually try to build one. Why don't you just stop, and do so, instead of becoming a Wikilawyer? - Nunh-huh 23:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion may be clear to you, but I beg your indulgence in asking for further clarification. Who is it that offers both a dissenting view to jtdirl and shares his wealth of experience and knowledge on the subject? For my part, I act only in accordance with established policy and guidelines, and if you have a different view, I ask that you take it up with those who set the guidelines after years of diligent and detailed discussion. In particular, please do not make changes such as this recent one to Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven. WP:MoS explicitly directs that articles on British subjects use International Dating. --Jumbo 00:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone who's raised the issue with is every bit as qualified as jtdirl to opine on the subject. You seem to equate "agrees with me" with "is an expert". No, you are not acting within guidelines, and MoS does not "direct" British dates. - Nunh-huh 00:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I reject your assumption that experts are those who agree with me. This is not the case. Jtdirl and I have disagreed on other matters, but I find it hard to understand how anybody could discount his years of participation in styles and formats. His knowledge and advice are of immense value in this discussion.

Your comment about the MoS likewise turns out not to be the case when we examine the relevant section:

If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually [[17 February]] [[1958]] (no comma and no "th"). In the United States and Canada, it is [[February 17]], [[1958]]. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.

In view ofthe above, may I ask you again why you are choosing to insert American format dates into an explicitly British article? And how many times need I quote the MoS before you accept that this document means what it says? You are not being helpful in your contributions. --01:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see. If you quote the same thing 1,000 times, and I've told you I've disagreed with your interpretation of it, why would your repetition persuade me that your interpretation of it is correct. The simple fact is that the last time there were rampant date jihadists such as yourself, the compromise that allowed productive editing to resume was to link dates and invoke preferences rather than having people unilaterally change them. You now want to nullify that compromise. That's not a good way to procede. - Nunh-huh 01:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions so far, insomuch as they reveal your position. I am asking you to correct your edits to Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven, as WP:MoS explicitly directs that articles on British subjects use International Dating. --Jumbo 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been asking you to stop your jihad, inasmuch as it's not authorized by any policy, and is antithetically opposed to the basic compromise on dates. So apparently asking isn't enough. - Nunh-huh 03:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue erupted in a major edit war some time ago. We agreed on a simple solution.

• Set preferences to choose whether one wanted to read International Dating dd/mm/yyyy or American Dating mm/dd/yyyy.

However as one has to have a WP account to set preferences, it was also agreed to apply another two simple rules:

• If a country uses either ID or AD predominantly, articles should be written in it.
• Where they don't, go by the initial choice made by the initial editor.

That was placed in the MoS through the giving of some examples of countries that use ID. The list in the MoS was never intended to be the only countries. If it was then users of ID would never have agreed to the compromise. It was always intended to be an example.

So when anyone of us edits and American article we always use American Dating (in fact for many international editors of WP it is probably the only time in their lives when they ever write dates in the month/day format as most of the planet use day/month, hence its name, International Dating). I have got into edit wars on American pages stopping users from replacing American Dating on American pages with International Dating.

The same is also true. All SuperJumbo has been doing is applying that rule. He has not been blanket changing dates. He has been

• ensuring that dates on British topics all follow ID rather than, as is the case a lot of the time, being a mishmash of both;
• fixing other articles so that all the date structures are the same, whether ID or AD;
• ensuring that date usage on WP reflects national usage in the country being written about. Many of the articles he has been working on lately have been French ones. France does not use American Dating, and it is as offensive for French people to have their articles written in American Dating (and spelling) as it is for Americans to have their articles written in International Dating and International English.

Cyde, as usual, bungled in to the process with his usual sledgehammer approach and blanket reverted SuperJumbo's corrections, insisting that

• a British topic like Edward VIII of the United Kingdom be a mishmash of International and American Dating, with sometimes both formats used in the one sentence
• an Irish topic like Bono be in American Dating even though Ireland does not use American Dating and Irish users on WP get extremely pissed off when Americans on WP keep converting articles to follow American Dating.

Rather than accuse Cyde of vandalism for forcing messes onto articles all over the place, perhaps the most charitable thing that could be said was that, as he does sometimes, he screwed up. International Dating users are however at this stage getting a bit fed up with some (and it is only a small number) of American users consistently trying to force a format of dating on country articles where that country never uses AD. ID users have been more than willing to ensure that countries that use AD have AD in them, and to revert any changes from AD. It would be nice if AD users showed the same willingness to accept that, as was the agreement that stopped the last major edit war on dating, some countries use ID, some AD and the articles on topics from each country should reflect usage.

The reality is simple:

• the US uses AD.
• Most of the Commonwealth of Nations uses ID.
• Most of Europe uses ID.

I don't know what various countries in South America and Africa use.

Maybe we should simply compile a list of countries and set down explicitly what dating should be used for each. We could establish a project on dates. That might be the solution. But in the meantime, SuperJumbo is perfectly correct to adjust European topics to ID, American topics to AD, and where a mishmash occurs in articles to fix it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Two things:

1. The MoS guideline as it stands quite clearly refers to the English-speaking world. Elsewhere, either should be acceptable, just as articles may be in U.S. or Commonwealth English. Although countries outside the English-speaking world each have their own date preferences, we do not normally apply those. To follow that logic, we would have to give dates in Hungarian-related articles in the form 2006-8-20.
2. No one has addressed my remark about using "popups" as an edit-warring tool. - Jmabel | Talk 22:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Which he apparently continues to do. - Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The behaviour I'm seeing here by SuperJumbo is simply unacceptable. Now he's revert-warring over dates on dozens of articles using a JavaScript tool. Regardless of whether or not his date format changing is acceptable, what he's doing now clearly isn't. I would suggest someone do something to reign him in here, as my hands are tied in this issue. --Cyde Weys 19:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

All he is doing is applying standard dates to the relevant articles. In doing that he is my full support and the full support of many others. The fact that Jmabel refers to something he calls Commonwealth English when we are actually dealing with international dating, is indicative of the nonsensical nature of the attacks being made on SuperJumbo. He is simply applying what we all do, and all will continue to do, applying International Dating to topics in areas where it is relevant, and applying American Dating to topics where it is relevant. I have fought edit wars to stop ID users from changing articles on American topics to ID dating and International English. American users deserve the respect of users in terms of their choice of language. I and others will continue to do similarly with ID articles out of respect for people in other countries who use ID and IE and who take offence when American language, spelling and dating is forced onto topics about countries that never ever use AD and AE. Superjumbo has asked opinions and consulted. Those who are attacking him rarely have. Cyde, bizarrely, reverted the correct usage of ID and IE on an article about an British king, imposing American dating onto the article. And he sought to force an article about an Irish rock band to keep American dating. It was ridiculous. If his hands are tied on the issue, it is about time. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The more I read about this issue the less I see a problem with what SuperJumbo is doing. Metamagician3000 23:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the above comments. At every stage I have sought to inform myself on what is a surprisingly complex subject, one with a long history and an outcome that represents a triumph of consensus and co-operation in both the technical and editorial sides of the project. I have sought consultation and availed myself of the relevant authorities in the MoS.

I am rather disappointed with the behaviour of Cyde, who reverted a swag of my careful changes and then when I pointed out the relevant guidelines I was following, declined to undo his reverts, meaning that I had to do so. Calling this "edit warring" is a little rich. I would have thought that at the very least he would have been pleased to undo his changes to articles on British royalty, which had the effect of inserting a mish-mash of date formats, many of them unlinked, many of them in American Dating format. At one point he even removed my comments to a third party on my own talk page. However, I imagine that Cyde is a busy person, and was merely working with best speed to correct what he thought were errors.

I have been rigorously correcting date formats as appropriate, as may be seen from my contributions. Some American articles were using International Dating, and I have corrected them, though I must say that such examples are few. It is far more common to find articles on subjects from countries that use International Dating that have American Dating applied. For every incorrectly formated date in an article on a U.S. president, I will find dozens in articles on British kings and queens. I thank all parties for their input into this discussion and hope that we can amicably proceed to the greater good of the project. --Jumbo 01:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User:SuperJumbo appears to just be deliberately being an ass about this, also. Consider this edit, for example, where his edit summary says "rationalise dates to International Dating for non-American article".

However, what has he actually changed in this article?

1. Changed [[21 April]], [[1958]] (21 April 1958) to [[21 April]] [[1958]] (21 April 1958)

• The original usage is a British peculiarity, not American
• The change has no effect on what the reader sees even if preferences are not set.

2. Wikilinked [[21 April]] [[1958]] in two more appearances where it wasn't linked (and didn't have a comma in the middle).

• Again, there wasn't any "American" usage as implied by his edit summary.
• If you take the time to check, these were probably linked at one time and unlinked as unnecessary duplicates by someone who didn't understand the date preferences purpose.

3. changed "18th June 2006," to "[[18 June]] [[2006]], and similarly for 23rd June 2006

• Once again, it was a British usage peculiarity he was internationalizing, not American usage.

So why the gratuitous nastiness and America-bashing in the edit summary? Gene Nygaard 02:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I do beg your pardon! When I get to the edit summary part of the edit, I have a little drop down box with various previous summaries in them. I just pick the easiest one out of the list, and I do recall thinking for one of them, hmmmm, was there anything American about that last lot? But I didn't think anybody would care too much or go reading too much into it. My apologies!

My understanding, and I'm willing to stand corrected on this, is that the comma in the middle of dates is a distinctly American thing, and thus inappropriate for International Dating. I've taken several approaches to commas in wikidates previously, and my understanding is that they are superfluous. If an editor has date prefs set to AD, then the comma is inserted regardless of whether it appears in the source. Contrarywise, if prefs are set to ID, then the comma is suppressed if it appears in the text. OTOH, if a reader has no date prefs set, then the comma is only displayed if the original date is in American format, regardless of whether there is a comma in the source or not.

Removing commas from wikidates is therefore a saving in space. Only one character per date, to be sure, but the nitpicker in me rejoices at the elimination of redundancy.

As for being an ass, this happens from time to time, but not deliberately so! If there was any nastiness or "America-bashing", then it was inferred, rather than implied, and I once again welcome the opportunity to express my admiration and respect for this great nation, the first of the modern democracies. --03:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This conversation has been going on a long time, and no-one has managed to show any policy violation by Jumbo. On the contrary, Jumbo's edits precisely follow the MOS. Apparently this date warring issue has got everyone so touchy that we've started attacking people who are part of the solution not the problem. Jumbo should be congratulated for staying cool and civil through all this; everyone else should move along and let Jumbo get on with his job. Snottygobble 03:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't rely on an undocumented bug/feature that could be changed in the future, just to save a single character. There is another problem of date links not working properly with the commas if you use things like [[February 30]], [[1712 in music|1712]] (February 30, 1712), but that's a another bug related to the silliness of using wikilinks to effect these preferences in the first place. Gene Nygaard 15:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments earlier are demonstrably wrong.

• Removing the comma is correct. International dating does not use a comma. American dating sometimes does. Wikipedia policy is not to use it.
• It is Wikipedia policy to remove th and to wikilist dates. He removed the th and wikilinked a date. Given that one of the benefits of doing that is to allow Americans who have set their preferences to see the date in American dating, rather than in International Dating, if they chose.

There, as in all the other points, SuperJumbo is acting strictly in accordance with the MoS. I echo Snottygobble's words. "Jumbo's edits precisely follow the MOS. Apparently this date warring issue has got everyone so touchy that we've started attacking people who are part of the solution not the problem. Jumbo should be congratulated for staying cool and civil through all this; everyone else should move along and let Jumbo get on with his job." Now leave Jumbo alone. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I referred to "Commonwealth English" because we are working in English. For what it's worth, SuperJumbo is changing the dates to the same form I would tend to favor, and I was not one of the parties in the resulting date warring. I still say that using popups on things like this is an unnecessary provocation. But if others don't agree, so be it. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CFD vs. DRV: action review requested

1. On July 19, WP:CFD deleted Category:Articles with unsourced statements (log} which was used on {{fact}}.
2. On July 31, CFD deleted Category:Articles lacking sources (log) which was used {{unreferenced}} and had been added to {{fact}} following the above deletion.
3. Subsequently, Category:Articles needing sources was created and added to {{fact}}, et al. This was nominated for deletion on August 11: (log)

• On August 14, deletion review was begun on Category:Articles lacking sources. This morning that was closed with a unanimous verdict to overturn (log)

Based on that conclusion (closed by Xoloz), and the close relationship between these different rulings, I have taken some unusual actions, which I want to make others aware of for review and comment.

1. I closed the ongoing CFD on Category:Articles needing sources, and as it was now entirely redundant to the restored category, I deleted it after moving the references back to the restored category.
2. I restored Category:Articles with unsourced statements. Though this category is not specifically discussed in the DRV, the arguments and context are extremely similar. I believe the existence of this deletion largely escaped notice because most uses of it were converted to Articles lacking sources at the time of its deletion.

If people object to the second undeletion, we can run that through DRV also, but I am confident the result would be the same.

More generally, I think we have a problem if CFD can, through the course of active discussion involving dozens of participants, repeatedly reach a conclusion that can be unanimously overturned by dozens of other participants at DRV. At least one of these groups must be out of touch with the views of the larger community, and that in itself is a substantial problem, in my opinion. Dragons flight 18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll raise my hand to speak for some of the DRV group: our objection, repeated in many voices, was that the deletion left a large tear in scores of articles and that any xfD lacked a solution to the damage caused by the deletion. Inasmuch as this was an admonitory category and not a content category, we (most of us) felt that there could be no deletion without, simultaneously, a solution that would substitute for its old function. There were other factors, as well, mainly related to the fact that the compulsion to delete was based on a false premise, but I'll let server folks talk about that. Geogre 18:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea ... this seems like a change to big to be undertaken by *FD alone. How about starting a discussion in project-space to go for two weeks and link it from {{cent}}? --Cyde Weys 18:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. As the admin who closed the first CFD above, you'll note that I disagreed with the consensus but considering that all of these categories spawn from changes in {fact} it seemed reasonable to assume that if we were going to put into place some metacategorization (by month? with a toc?) then the category itself was likely to be nuked in the process anyhow (and others added to {fact}, requiring little human intervention). I don't think CFD itself is the problem, but that it is somewhat the redheaded stepchild of *FD so discussions there aren't given enough eyes. Barring that, I'd be up for making a guideline to closing admins on CFD to bring maintenance category deletion notices to ANI or VP or something. Syrthiss 21:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like the sound of that. There is already an inherent bias towards keeping things that are most useful to editors rather than the vastly greater number of readers, and this sounds like it would make it worse. It is people who visit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion who are most engaged with the management of the category system, which is an issue in its own right, and I don't think our rights should be taken away. We have a page called "Categories for discussion", so the question is are we going to be allowed to make decisions on categories at that page or not? If not, why not? There are an increasing number of comments on the page which simply scorn the process rather than engaging with the merits of the category, and it is becoming demoralising.

I am seriously concerned that the whole system is biased towards retention of marginal categories because it usually only takes the creator and a few other people to prevent deletion, and the people who (over)value a category are the ones who are most likely to notice that it is up for discussion. A bad example of this was the retention of the "entertainers by age of death categories"; there was an overwhelming consensus to delete after 7 days, but the debate wasn't closed promptly and after 9 days a bunch of meat puppets showed up and voted "keep" in the space of a few hours. It increasingly seems to me that over time the category system is likely to get steadily worse, because even if only 10% of bad categories are kept, that means that more and more bad categories will accumulate over time and eventually the category clutter on high profile articles will become so bad that they might as well not have categories at all. The way to tackle this is to keep as much control of the category system as possible in the hands of people who care about the category system as a whole and vote on that basis, rather than as partisans for or against specific categories, and that means the people who take the trouble to visit "Categories for discussion" regularly. Thus I deprecate anything that downgrades the decision making status of "Categories for discussion. Chicheley 23:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I had thought that the standard way of doing things was that pages or categories associated with a process, policy, proposal etc. should not be deleted without first abandoning or changing the things that depend on them. In other words, *FD is not where we decide how to do things on Wikipedia; *FD doesn't get to decide policy (process, proposal, ...) by deleting them or the things they depend upon.

Thus, if one wants to get rid of something used by the project, make it obsolete first and THEN delete it. IOW, if {{fact}} shouldn't associate with a category, get consensus first to change {{fact}} not to use a category, and then, when the category is no longer in use, delete it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's already the wording in Templates for deletiscussion, and I was asking the same question on talk pages this morning. I don't think the current categories are a perfect solution by any means, but a slash-and-burn technique isn't going to help us improve any. -- nae'blis 22:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This conversation brings to light a very serious problem with the workings of Wikipedia. Decisions are supposed to be made by discussion, but there is little consensus about what that means in practice. To some it means that there is a straw poll, everyone gives their opinion, and if the requisite percentage is met, there is consensus. That is the current practice, but I think this understanding of the meaning of "discussion" is wrong. Discussion has to be a much bigger process, and the wisdom of administrators has to play a bigger role. Jimmy Wales, in his numerous talks (they are linked to his article), gives an AFD example where everyone says "delete" until the very end of the discussion at which point someone explains clearly why something should be kept, and it is. This notion of discussion is slipping away. If we have policies, an admin should be able to weigh the arguments made during a discussion in light of what the policies are and then make an informed decision. This is more like being a judge than a election official. If a discussion clearly points out a problem with a policy, the closing admin should close it by saying "no consensus, refer the issue for discussion at the relevant policy page".

Our system of creating policy is moving towards becoming totally descriptive. Having descriptive policies instead of proscriptive ones are valuable when things are evolving. If you don't know the best way to do something, or if people have differing ideas about how to do things, let them work out solutions, and see which work and which get adopted by the wider community. Then we can create descriptive policies about what evolves. Once we have policies, we should apply them, or discuss changing them. What we shouldn't do is vote case by case with a random set of voters.

I'd like to propose that anyone closing a discussion try to weigh the arguments against policy. If the popular "vote" is clearly against policy, the admin could state an "initial decision" explaining their rationale, and leave the discussion up for a while to allow conversation to continue. In this way the admin would be behaving more like a facilitator. Once closed, the voters could start a discussion about changing policy on the appropriate page. --Samuel Wantman 08:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just reading through this thread, and I think this last point is an excellent one. Closing admins should see themselves as judges, not election officials. And referring things for "further discussion" should definitely be done more often. I remember a CfD where no consensus could be reached, but a group went off to discuss things for a week or so, and then came back to CfD with the result of the discussion, which was then accepted after a period of time waiting for regular CfDers to comment. Worked like a dream. Carcharoth 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there not a centralised discussion yet? I've looked and can't find it. Carcharoth 00:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An suspicious annoymous user editting the "Entropia Universe" article.

Hello,

I'm concerned greatly about an annoymous user (last IP was 88.105.73.18) who seems to be on a crusade on the Entropia Universe arcitle. They have a very swift tendancy to edit *any* negativity in the arcitle out, often under the guise of 'Removing Vandalism'.

They have even targetted the talk page too (Clean Up, Removal of unnecessary negative ranting and Vandalism, Removal of Spam Advertising, Restoration of Balance and removal of troll comments.)

They never use an account, and from the user contributions on the user page the Entropia Universe article is the only place they seem to edit.

I don't want to turn this into an all out edit war - but this person is really trying my wick and I don't know where to turn. They have as of yet left no comments on the talk page of said article.

erm... help!

AvanniaRayzor 23:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputes about article tone are pretty common, and this one doesn't seem to require (or allow for) administrative intervention at this time. I agree that some statistics-removals have been agressive, but the solution is to talk about—try taking WAS up on his suggestion at the talk page. I'll also add the article to my watchlist to get a better feel for the situation if it continues. -- SCZenz 03:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. How long have you guys been putting up with those talkpage deletions? Without going into the more difficult questions of article text removal and article tone, the removal of other people's comments from the talk page is not a difficult question at all. Doing that is a serious policy violation, period. I have posted a sharply worded warning on the user's own talkpage. If it happens again, please a) revert, and b) let me or another admin know as soon as possible. I've watchlisted the page, but watching isn't infallible, so do give somebody a shout if this abusive practice continues. Bishonen | talk 04:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

The 'agressive' article editting has been going on for some time now. I started to mildly panic when the talk page was pruned too. I keep my eyes on that article because of all of this nonsense so I'll let you know if it happens again. And thanks guys for at least listenning to me :-) I feel rather benign in comparison to the *insert godlike tone* all powerful admins! */godlike tone* ^_^. If there's anything more I can do let me know :-) AvanniaRayzor 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh... just fall down and worship, that'll do. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

• worships* :-) AvanniaRayzor 23:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mike18xx Again

I posted regarding this user's behavior shortly before but it was not acted upon. The user has continued to make edit summaries with uncivil personal attacks and soapboxing:

• I didn't say strike didn't have "impact" -- and don't BS in your summary when your real intention is to restore fluffery. [131]
• remove Marxist class-warfare rhetoric (eg, "student groups" are not a "well-off sector"). A collapsing economy precipitated the strike; it was not the result of it [132]
• Changed sentence had two erroneous implications: That falling copper and aid were alone responsible for economic declines, which in turn were alone responsible for Allende's downfall. [133]
• Rv "fluffing". First paragraph replaced with wording similar to main Allende bio entry. [134]
• rv; pic did contain source information. Everyone keep an eye on Holocaust-related pics, as there appears to be a campaign afoot to delete them at Wikipedia [135] (this was on an image removed by Orphanbot)

--Jersey Devil 01:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The user was blocked for a week and he now says he has left Wikipedia. He requested that people stop editing his talk page as courtesy (as they were repeatedly adding old warnings), so I deleted the page and full protected it. The user has access to an IP account that he was using that he could use to request the page unprotected, but there doesn't seem like there will be much need for that. The user seems to want to use his m:Right to vanish, so I'm letting him unless anyone objects with that. Cowman109^Talk 02:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are talking about a different person. You seem to be talking about User:Mikedk9109 while I am referring to User:Mike18xx--Jersey Devil 02:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. *looks at the mention of someone also named Mike two sections above*. Yes, it looks like I am. Sorry about that :) Cowman109^Talk 02:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Another hostile comment targetted towards User:Pablo-flores after User:Jmabel reported him:

Let me see if I have this straight: Somebody is tattling on me, and you're sending me a warning without having even seen the subjects in question to see if I am actually guilty of the alleged crimes charged? Has it occurred to you how easy it is for whining tattle-tailers to "bully" their "subjective views" into an article just by continually "shopping" around for admins to go stomp over the user-pages of their critics? Fine. Two can play the game; and since I have your attention, I'd just like to let you know that many Wiki editors who tattle about me are disingenuous vandals who have no interest in writing truthful articles and every interest in locking down their propaganda. This is particularly the case in (a) Islam-related articles (for obvious reasons), (b) property-reditribution articles (socialists would love to imagine there are no credible, or any at all, arguments against their favorite way of getting stuff without paying for it) and (c) Chile/Allende-related articles (where some are tenacious in their attempts to preserve moldy 35-year old propaganda -- it tooks *months* to get into Wiki the Chilean Chamber of Deputies' own pivotal condemnation of Allende and request for the military oust him). Also please be observant of the fact that edits are not the same thing as reverts, no matter how much the defenders of rubbish would like to conflate the two when siccing the admins on their detractors.--Mike18xx 03:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC) [136] --Jersey Devil 03:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has been warned by me more than once and I am keeping an eye on his contributions for further incidences of issues. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth: I had contacted Pablo-flores because he works on Latin American topics, but not on Chilean topics (which is the main place I found myself in conflict with Mike). You can read our exchange on his user talk page: it should be clear I was not "tattling", I was asking advice for advice on how to proceed, because I was finding myself in conflict with this user. My comments there begin

I've been crossing paths quite a bit with Mike18xx (talk · contribs). He's clearly sincere, and I don't doubt that he intends to help create an encyclopedia, and sometime makes good edits (especially in terms of removing undercited material) but he is really abrasive, and he often justifies his actions with claims about Marxism that appear (at least to me) bizarre. At the moment, this is mostly intended as a "heads-up". If a "request for comment" really was what its name suggests, I'd start one, but in practice it seems to be more like bringing a suit, which is not what I intend to do.

If this is "tattling" I cannot imagine what would constitute an acceptable way for one person to consult another about the conduct of a third. - Jmabel | Talk 02:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: Pablo ended up blocking him for 48 hours, although it was while I was asking him a question that he hadn't yet answered, I nevertheless support this block. ++Lar: t/c 13:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a few things to add about this disturbing editor. It dates back to July 11th.

• 22:58 trolling
• 23:01 describing my userpage as a "circle-jerk back-patting over at his user-page"
• 23:08 inflammatory comments
• 00:02 Tony Sidaway removing inflammatory comments before
• 00:45 Tony blocking him for "Unacceptable incivility, edit warring, abuse of unlicensed images, acts of clear bad faith". -- Szvest 13:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

[edit] Obvious stalking and harassment

I'm at a loss as to what to do at this point. I'm concerned with Badlydrawnjeff following me around and keeping tabs on the AfD's I close. Threads to my talk page where this went on are here and here but note they are archived. Recently, he again began discussion of an AfD I just closed here. I'm asking for admin to intervene please. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 01:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just say "Thank you for your input," and keep doing what you're doing. You're doing good work. One of the things that you discover when you become an admin is that no matter what you do, there is someone, somewhere, who is unhappy with it. You're undertaking an admin-like task without admin powers, which is doubly thankless. Jeff's entitled to his opinion that your closing WP:SNOW AfDs early is inappropriate, but that position isn't supported by common practice. That's my $0.02, anyway. Nandesuka 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying my best to ignore him. I just figured I'd log an actual complaint, and bring this to the community. I dont really see it as a personal attack, so I felt it was best here. SynergeticMaggot 02:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There will always be stalkers. User:JDG's mine, for instance, they come with the territory. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say something like what Nandesuka said with the minor note that the speedy policies are controversial enough as is. There isn't much need to make things worse by speedy closing stuff which isn't within policy unless you have a very clear case (like in the Chuck Norris Facts article. However, speedy keeping out of policy is not as potentially disruptive as speedy deleting outside policy. Also, Jeff's behavior while annoying is not intrinsically bad- he is noting when a new admin makes out of policy speedy keeps. My recommendation to Synergetic would be to ignore Jeff if he continues but keep in mind what the actual policy is and make sure if you are invoking WP:SNOW to note it in your closing comment. I've also sent a note to Jeff asking him to stop. JoshuaZ 02:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

To side-step the issue of the early closes for a moment, there's nothing wrong with "wikistalking" in my opinon. The inventor of wikis has said that the "contributions" link and the ability to keep track of each other is a crucial ingrediant. I have a wiki-stalking box on my pseudo-user page that links direct to people's contributions. As to the early closes, I'll mostly echo Nandesuka, with a few small notes, as the ones I looked at were all acceptable, but I wouldn't have closed them.

• Were you finding that there weren't that many that had run five days that were obvious closes? The reason that I ask is that closing early doesn't do that much to decrease admin load. An argument could be made that since the more obsessive among us will double-check your work, it increases it.
• It's a good idea if something is to be closed early that you note in the close explicitly that you've done so, and even perhaps link to the "closing early" section in the guide to deletion. Don't link SNOW as it means nothing and there are other places to link that are not controversial.

brenneman ^{L} 02:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, have you looked at the relevant closes? They were out of policy. The only justification would be WP:SNOW. JoshuaZ 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And WP:SNOW cannot be a justification. I will challenge such closes every time as they're contrary to our speedy policies and guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? Is it unconstitutional? Physically impossible? Aesthetically displeasing? Is there an actual non-process-worshipping reason? --Calton | Talk 05:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, now dishonesty, too. I logged my opinion on the Chuck Norris AfD on the 18th, three days ago. I keep the AfDs I'm involved with watchlisted, thus, I see when they're closed. I saw you closed it early. Done deal. My other complaint [137] was when I went through an AfD page about two days after it was posted, and noted all your speedy closes. Guess what? I normally read the AfD page every day. Even if I *was* "stalking" you, read WP:STALK sometime: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." You've grossly flaunted policy numerous times, and I have a legitimate reason to check up on your future closes as a result. It would be nice if some admins would instead step in and ask SM to cease with the closings until he learns basic deletion policy instead of coming to my talk page and getting on my case for trying to fix a problem. 9 improper, out of process speedy closes in the last 3 days. I'll fix the problem every time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Oh with that one I wasnt invoking SNOW. I check the last log on the main AfD page once a new log hits. Whats odd is that the AfD in quesiton is in fact in August 16th's log, yet time stamped as nom'ed on the 17th. If you wish to check, here is the log. Its at the very bottom. Thus making it approx. its fifth day on AfD, with 12 keeps (not counting this users keep:User:64.91.92.57), and no deletes. SynergeticMaggot 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Timestamp on Chuck Norris sig: 23:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC). Timestamp on SM close: 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC). --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noted that already. And thanks. SynergeticMaggot 02:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Aaron: I just mean that he is bringing my closes up way too often. And says he'll do it whenever he feels like it. I dont mind the stalking part, its the hassle of him bothering me with it everytime I refresh my watchlist. And I do specify if I'm closing early in my edit summaries by the way. SynergeticMaggot 02:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we take this to my talk page? Call it quasi-pseudo-informal-mediation, or something, and help to keep ANI clean? - brenneman ^{L} 02:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've brought your closes up twice, and you were especially hostile about it when I called you out on it and provided the links to them. There's an easy way to avoid it, of course, but you instead decide to call it harassment instead of fixing the problem. Not much else I can say to you, I've been extremely patient given the circumstances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation: "Do what I say and I won't bug you, and I've been nice about waiting for you to obey me." Lovely. --Calton | Talk 05:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Noted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur with translation: Bdjeff might consider that SMaggot is not a recalcitrant child and is not under any onus to conduct his behavior in a manner pleasing to jeff. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you approve of such flaunting of policy. Good to know. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! Now I wish I had powered through the edit conflict when I first saw this instead of backing out. Everyone please get the hackles down. Jeff's point of view and Maggot's are far from each other on a continuum, but they're both licit. Essentially, if something runs after a unanimous delete, it's not really going to hurt anything, so, if someone is asking that the thing go full term, there's nothing really bad about it. It's not really an AN/I issue. I agree with Aaron here. If Jeff is seeming too much of a finger wagger, then Maggot is probably seeming too much of a tattler, so let's relax. Both are legitimate folks with legitimate points of view, and both are trying to do what is best for Wikipedia. Geogre 11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If any closing administrators have anything to add to what I said at User talk:SynergeticMaggot#Speedy_keeps, please do. Uncle G 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy anything bugs me, unless it's an article that fits one of the already defined categories of "speedy delete." There is no CSK, just CSD. Festina lente, as the man said. Speedy keep, of all things, should be very, very rare, and only when dealing with WP:POINT violations and vandalism (nominating Carl Jung for deletion, e.g., because your favorite guru's article got deleted). Geogre 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, it would be nice if we could speedy keep things like this. Unfortunately, any attempts to cut that down are consistently shot down, so it tells me that people are indeed interested in the process as long as it suits them. That inconsistency is not a net positive for building this encyclopedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on! It's an honest difference of philosophy, so calling folks hypocritical isn't really helping, you know? It's true that most people put the burden of proof on the article and some on the people who believe that an article should be deleted, but the status quo always has an inherent virtue of working. Speedy keeping is often "stop talking," just as "speedy delete" is, and that's why neither should be used except in very narrowly defined circumstances. Geogre 15:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My two cents as an observer: Badlydrawnjeff has moved from stalking to harassment. He's been told by SM that SM does not agree with his opinion and has stated his intention to continue to bring it up on SM's talk page anyway. BDJ should just drop it, or if he thinks the article should be deleted, relist it. Nagging someone on their talk page is extremely rude when it clear that neither one's arguments have or will change the other's mind. —Hanuman Das 14:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerkcity (talk · contribs)

I had a recent unpleasant interaction with Jerkcity (talk · contribs). After digging into his contribs I found some abusive edits. Most are old, so I wasn't sure it was worth posting here, but an admin I asked on IRC said the recent summaries warranted a note on ANI. So here is what I found:

The following are either incivil/abusive edits or have abusive edit summaries. 23 Sep 2005 9 Mar 2006 9 Mar 2006 9 Mar 2006 10 Mar 2006

This is the removal of a spam warning. This is perhaps just weird. This is an exchange I had with him about the rotten.com links; he later deleted this. Edit summaries for this exchange weren't complimentary; e.g. this one.

He then got a civility warning from Gadfium; he responded with this diff, deleting it, again with an abusive edit summary.

He's not particularly active, but some of those edits seemed extreme, so I thought it was worth letting people know about him. Mike Christie (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed his august 2006 edits (21 edits). He contributed some pics of toilets. Apparently he thinks links to rotten.com have more value than you do (you want to delete some, he objects). He called you fat. You respond with the above. WAS 4.250 04:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have posted here on the basis of just those, though "lick it" isn't very civil, but another editor (a woman) found this edit summary, among others, alarming. She was planning to take a look at the rotten.com links to see if they were spam, and had started to do so when he objected on her talk page. I don't know if she plans to proceed, but her concern about the edit summaries seemed real to me. I asked for another opinion on #vandalism-en-wp, and got the response that the recent summaries warranted a note here. So here they are. Mike Christie (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Girls not allowed to edit Wikipedia?" What a weirdo. Most of his edits have these bizarre or disgusting edit summaries. He edits very sporadically though; I think it would take a community block of at least 2 weeks to a month for any message to be received (though that may very well be a lost cause.) A month-long block seems harsh but for someone who contributes relatively infrequently but this requires a creative solution. We shouldn't have to put up with this kind of misogyny. Your thoughts? Grandmasterka 06:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fellow seems to be inspired by the Jerky Boys, and he enjoys that kind of alledged humor, so disruption seems to be where his jollies lie. If he's gotten sufficient warnings, he probably should get a bit of a virtual punch in the nose (reference to defending against sharks, not a threat (one has to be explicit these days)). Geogre 11:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

misogyny? Amorrow sock perhaps? «ct» (t|e) 01:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll threatens to violate "use common names"

This "binding" poll is using majority voting to establish naming conventions that, as of now, fly in the face of established conventions. Using "Michigan M-1" for a highway named M-1 violates both our naming conventions and common sense. Of course you my disagree, in which case you should "vote" too. Because all that matters is a numerical majority. --SPUI (T - C) 04:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand how this requires administrator intervention... frankly, posting to AN/I about it seems like spamming for "votes". --W.marsh 04:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It requires someone to burst the bubble and inform them that a poll like this is not the answer. --SPUI (T - C) 04:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This sort of thing is exactly the sort of thing which could make me go over there and change my position, just out of a fit of spite. I think your position is the better of the two choices, SPUI, but it's not a choice between RIGHT and WRONG as you cast it. It's a series of tradeoffs. The most critical thing, as you and your antagonists have shown us over the course of countless months, is that without a standard -- even an arbitrarily-chosen one -- you or they will continue to drive all of us insane. (And all regarding an endless series of articles that I personally wouldn't even rate as encyclopedically notable. Sigh.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping prove that polls are evil - you can change your vote and affect the result for petty reasons that have nothing to do with the actual dispute. --SPUI (T - C) 05:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if the vote is close and I'm on the losing side, I intend to change my vote because I think it is far more important to end this nonsense than which side wins. WAS 4.250 06:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I greatly admire SPUI's purity and dedication and commitment and logic. I just hope he has what it takes to accept to accept that sometimes it is better to accept something and move on rather than fight forever over small potatoes. It is time to end the battle over naming US state highways in either a consistent way across fifty states or else however they are most usually refered to within each state. so to finally bring this to a conclusive end, I urge everyone to think about it enough to make a choice and then vote in the matter prior to aug. 31 so we can bring this weird tempest in a teapot to a close. WAS 4.250 05:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither option is a "consistent way across fifty states". The first one is a bloody stupid in-between option. --SPUI (T - C) 05:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

At present M-1 (Michigan), M-1, M-1 (Michigan highway), Michigan State Highway 1, M-1 (MI), and Woodward Avenue all point to this page or a disambig that can get you there. Throwing more redirects at it for 'common name(s)' and/or 'consistent Wikipedia specific standard(s)' seems unlikely to hurt anything. Obviously there could still be dispute over the actual name used for the primary page, but is that really so vital if users get to the right page / can use whatever linking name they prefer? --CBD 13:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Many people, noobs and veterans alike, make links, change links, and bold text corresponding to the article title rather than the actual name. Sometimes this is done because of a misunderstanding (willful or otherwise) of our practices, but often it's because people don't know the name offhand. If you are writing an article about a town in Maryland and want to write about Maryland Route 3, what do you write in the text? Would saying "Maryland Route 3 runs through Foo" be redundant? Would saying "Route 3 runs through Foo" be improper? How do you know if "Maryland Route 3" is bolded because it's the common name or because someone felt the Maryland should be there because it's in the title? You'll probably end up saying "Maryland Route 3", which in this case is correct. ("Route 3" is also correct here, by the way.) But in other states, the opposite is true. "The town of Foo, Florida is at the intersection of Florida State Road 50 and Florida State Road 19" is horribly redundant. Or even worse - the suggested form "Michigan State Trunk Highway 1 runs through Bar, Michigan", when no one, local or otherwise, calls it anything but M-1. But people write like this all the time, because the article is located there, and they either don't know better, are lazy, or think they have to write the whole title when linking. ("Florida State Road A1A runs next to the Atlantic Ocean, roughly parallel to US 1 for much of its path through Florida."; "As of 2004, the highway's eastern terminus is in Jacksonville Beach, Florida at an intersection with Florida State Road A1A three blocks from the Atlantic Ocean."; Little Talbot Island State Park is a Florida State Park located on Little Talbot Island, 17 miles northeast of Jacksonville on Florida State Road A1A." (Florida State Park may be redundant here too); "The John C. Lodge Freeway (Michigan State Highway 10) in Detroit is named in his honor.") --SPUI (T - C) 13:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Since polls are evil, and since the current process is flawed, and since there's only one user on here who has expertise on highways, why not just block anyone who's ever worked on a highway article under the wrong name? (After all, working on highways under the wrong name is disruptive, and we need to block people who cause disruption.) Besides, since the discussion is on WP:AN/I, the only real enforcement mechanism is a block, not another discussion. --Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 14:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the concern about "losing good editors" as a result of this dispute isn't really a concern. Anyone who's edited highways under the wrong name is prima facie a bad editor. And Wikipedia doesn't need any more bad editors. --Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 14:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, if you don't want a poll, what do you want to do? Can you think of another solution to this mess? --physicq210 17:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what argument "The John C. Lodge Freeway (Michigan State Highway 10) in Detroit is named in his honor." is supposed to represent. If the wording were "The John C. Lodge Freeway (M-10) in Detroit...," someone unfamiliar with the highway naming convention in Michigan would most likely not understand what "M-10" represents. So if that is an example of redundancy, I 100% disagree. "Michigan State Highway" may not be the proper naming convention, but it is certainly better understood by the everyday reader...and isn't that the audience we're attempting to reach? Homefryes 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Also we are basically commanded to come to a consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This isn't the ideal solution by any means. But after 6 months of no movement on either side to come to a consensus I think it's the only logical and acceptable thing to do. One side will have to be forced to accept the other position and finally drop it. And a vote is the clearest way to do that short of having a Wikimeetup that involves a duel with pistols or some such nonsense. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Moby Dick is back on his harrasment parole

Moby Dick (talk · contribs) is back on his harrasment parole.

• Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick and /Evidence

Enforcement of ban on harassment

2) Should Moby Dick violate the ban on harassment, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 7 to 0 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

--Cat out 10:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I can't see how voting Keep with no further comment constitutes 'harrasment'. On the other hand, he is banned from editing Kurdish or Turkish articles - so voting in a related afd is pushing it. But if that's all he's doing, I see no need for discipline. --Doc 11:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See evidence on the ArbCom case, user has made it a habit to vote on afds I participate in. User is voting on that AFD just because I voted on it. What would constitute as stalking (harrasment) if this doesn't?

Furthermore Arbcom treated Moby Dick as a sockpuppet of Davenbelle who was also found to be stalking me.

--Cat out 11:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd better confess my self. Yes, I committed the same crime [138]. I do seek forgiveness. Bertilvidet 12:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are intentionaly stalking me (as it appears you are confessing that). I ask you to stop. --Cat out 13:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that we might have similar interests, despite different approaches, and thus have several identical articles on our watchlists? I do believe our occasional disputes wind up with more balanced articles, so I do not intend to stop contributing to articles that also have your interest. And I do not ask you to do so. I regret if you consider my keep vote as an harassment. Bertilvidet 13:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not recal accusing you of anything. You did that yourself. Oh you were actualy told of the AfD, Moby dick was not. I feel his "coincidental" appearance on that afd constitutes as stalking. A full list of coincidences from Moby Dick is avalible at Arbcom/Moby Dick/Evidence page. --Cat out 13:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Arbcom to clarify whether Moby Dick's ban extends to projectspace on WP:RFAR. If it does then we can stop this without trying to string AfD arguments which don't even mention Cool Cat into a pattern of harrassment. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at this last night and decided that it isn't, by itself, a violation of the spirit or word of the remedies in the case; it's an isolated edit. If it should become a persistent pattern of following votes and other edits by Cool Cat, that may merit action. --Tony Sidaway 12:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

When Moby Dick made the suggestion that I was "disrupting kurdish categories". User:Bertilvidet was there quick to verify it. No one, including my own mentor, bothered to even asked my opinion. Archived ANB/I discussion. Later on an admin was quick to block me for that. The block alowed me to notice what Moby Dick had been doing (stalking). It had taken me roughly a day to gather the evidence and present it first to ANB/I and later to arbcom. The arbitration hearing had recently closed concluding that Moby Dick was indeed stalking me and one other user.

Arbcom also treated Moby Dick as a sockpuppet of Davenbelle. Davenbelle is banned from politics related articles as per a previous arbcom hearing. Moby Dick is banned from kurdish related articles. Thats two reasons why he should not be any near that afd. Furthermore he is banned from harrasing (stalking) me as per official WP:HA policy and as per an arbcom hearing. Two more reasons why he should not be any near that AfD.

Now we are back at square one with everyone being so protective of Moby Dick. I had enough of this stalking for one and a half years. Users entier contrib for the past week plus is that vote. He did not accidentaly discovered it now has he?

--Cat out 13:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As per clarification from arbcom. Moby Dick has violated Enforcement #1. --Cat out 22:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

He's been put on notice to avoid anything to do with Turkey or the Kurds. --Tony Sidaway 13:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use violation on {{Infobox Australia}}

{{Infobox Australia}} has a fair use violation with the use of Image:Aust Coat of Arms (large).jpg. This image is clearly tagged with a fair use tag. Currently, the removal of the image from the template 'breaks' the template, in that a portion of it fails to visually display in a pleasing way. Nothing functional about the template is broken.

Several users (User:Szhaider, User:Cyberjunkie, and User:Petaholmes) keep re-inserting the image into the template, in violation of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9, which specifically proscribes the use of fair use images in templates, even if legal under law. Petaholmes in particular insists this usage is fair use [139][140] and is not problematic [141]. I have explained to Petaholmes that this is not a permitted use, and pointed him to where he can go to get a fair use exception (though such exceptions are exceedingly rare).

I have noted both to Cyberjunkie and Petaholmes that this template, while 'broken' by the removal of the image, is actually broken in its use of the image. It should be re-written to avoid the use of the image, or {{Infobox country}} should be used instead. In the meantime, the image should be removed from the template. It is not arguable to say, in essence, "We violated your copyright because our template did not look right without it, and we wanted it to look right until we developed an alternative". Petaholmes is currently arguing that I am bizarrely targeting this infobox and that the image should remain until we develop an alternative [142].

As it stands now, the image is still on the template in violation of our policies. Failing an exception being granted for this case (which as noted above is unlikely), it needs to be removed from the template, regardless of whether the template looks nice without it or not. I would appreciate it if a previously uninvolved admin would please remove the image again, and leave a warning to the effect of fair use violations being improper to anyone who attempts to revert the removal again. --Durin 14:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that this isn't the only template that you have attempted to destroy in your endless quest against coat of arms images appearing in templates. In many cases, coats of arms images are in the public domian, and can't be copyrighted- so there is no problem in using them in templates. I would say this is true of the Australia arms. Can't you find something more productive to do, or at the least work round your identified issue instead of mindlessly deleting valid content? Astrotrain 14:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• All contributions to Wikipedia done with good intent and within our policies are welcome here. I'm sorry you feel that this is "mindless", an "endless quest", unproductive and having identified issues. If the images in question which you feel are in the public domain are in fact so, then by all means please go and fix the tagging of those images to reflect that with proper sourcing to confirm the status, rather than assaulting me for properly removing images under our fair use policies. --Durin 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The copyright status of the image is a rather interesting question. At the moment it is listed as fair use which is probably the safest option if we want to avoid some rather messy parts of international law.Geni 15:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• It is an interesting question, and one that we should satisfactorily resolve so that all coats of arms images of all countries can be properly tagged with whatever comes of the research into this legal area. We've done our homework on country flags. We need to do the same on country coats of arms, rather than make a presumption (as some have done) that they are in the public domain. Until we know they are in the public domain for a fact, we need to treat the tags as authentic unless we have some verifiable, sound reason for re-tagging them under a free license tag. --Durin 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed about the tagging. Aren't Coats of Arms defined by the proper heraldic description ("Sable, 3 mice courant, argent; crest, a domestic cat couched as to spring, proper; motto: As my Whimsy takes me") and the concrete rendering is up to the artist? So there are a number of questions here:

1. Is any given description under copyright? If not, we can have someone rerender the description to get a free image.
2. If yes, is the actual rendering a derived work under copyright (I'd argue no...)? If not, we can again have someone rerender it.
3. Is the actual rendering a creative act and hence protected? (It might depend on how formulaic the rendering is)
4. Are there any renderings for a given coat of arms that are public domain? For most jurisdictions and most coats of arms this is probably true, as they are fairly old. But things like Crown Copyright might interfere.

--Stephan Schulz 15:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• If the images are currently listed as fair use, it's inappropriate to use them in userspace. Until we determine otherwise, they should be removed from the templates. --Improv 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Try that, Improv, and you will generate the mother of all edit wars with users from every country they are used, and people working on every article they are used, reverting their removal en masse. You are talking about triggering off a Wikipedia-wide war on the issue. Merely touching one sparked this row here. Can you imagine the results if you try to take the coat of arms from the UK template, the French template, the Irish template, the American template, etc etc. It would be an exceedingly silly thing to do. Get the guys in the foundation to get legal advice on their status and if they are legal put a note to that effect in our rules. Frankly the Australian row right now would be like a kiddie's tea party compared to the backlash that would occur all over Wikipedia if it was attempted, unilaterally, to remove coats of arms from boxes. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the US arms are not fair use but public domain, but I have no idea about the others. However, we have a firm rule against using fair use images in Templates, and if the images are tagged fair use, they have to go. If you can find public domain or other compatible copyright images, please use them, but threatening a war over a non-negotiable rule set by Jimbo is counterproductive. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• If they're violating policy in an area that breaches legal safeguards we've established for ourselves to stay well away from legal contention, then they should get a stern talking to. It's not so unilateral if established, sensible policy is behind it. --Improv 17:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If people edit war to be unfree content back into template space, just protect the templates and explain that we don't use unlicensed images to decorate our templates. It's not obvious to me what kind of "row" that would cause beyond normal irritation about unfree image cleanup, or why we need to worry about it any more than our removing logos from userspace, or any other activity unpopular with people who would prefer Wikimedia projects to have a different approach to copyright and licensing.

Not all coat of arms designs are in the public domain. Any rendition of such a design is a derivative work, and cannot be released under the kind of free licensing that we want. We must therefore claim Wikipedia:Fair use on the rendition. In those cases in which the description is "in the public domain" (very loosely speaking here), we need to make our own renditions, as we don't claim Wikipedia:Fair use on things that we can potentially create on our own. The fact that there are other requirements upon the usage of coats of arms in various different jurisdictions that have nothing to do with copyright is something that we seem to have so far been comfortable ignoring. A further complication is that there are coats of arms in which there is only one "official" rendition and we cannot create our own and maintain accuracy. We can't ask User:Brad Patrick to make some sort of blanket declaration on whether coats of arms are "okay" or "not okay", because each individual coat of arms is going to require a minimal level of research. We'll muddle through, I'm sure. Jkelly 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. It's a single-use template. Subst it. --SPUI (T - C) 17:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Concur with User:SPUI. Another alternative; User:J Di implemented a variable calling [143] in the template, so that the rendering of it has the coat of arms if called with the name of the coat of arms. This satisfies the requirements of our fair use policy.
  • This seems like an excellent solution. I'm willing to help with migration to this solution if everyone finds it acceptable and someone points me at the list. Drop me a note on my talkpage if you want help here. --Improv 18:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• I also agree with comments of others above; even if it does touch off a war, it's not a reason to not do the right thing. Ascertaining what the right thing to do is a case by case basis that needs some level of research to achieve.
• Also, echo what User:Jkelly said. Various jurisdictions have restrictions on how images can be used. Whether they have a legal leg to stand on doesn't, in my opinion, seem to be the central point we need to consider. The use of such images, if done clearly under a reasonable fair use claim, gives us an affirmative defense and response to those entities who voice concern to us about violating their usage restrictions. Use on userpages and other non-main namespace areas brings no value to the project and exposes us to complaints that would leave us with less of a reasonable response to those entities. If the images are in fact under a free-license, let's tag them as such and move on. If not, let's be conservative. --Durin 17:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Australia coa.png here at en is covering up commons:Image:Australia coa.png (which I didn't notice when I tried to insert the Commons version into the template discussed above). The version here at en, apart from questions about our ability to license the image and Australia's restriction usage, has no information about the source of the rendition, the artist of that particular rendition, or the license the creative aspect is under. Is there any reason not to delete it? Jkelly 18:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, with the caveat that vector-images.com has made mistakes, and I don't think we should be capitulating our copyright free decisions to them. See [144]. --Durin 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jkelly 19:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I've missed something, but was there a consensus to move what was in the template to the Australia article then delete what was in the template space? I think this is a bad idea, as people that want to edit the Australia article are going to have to go through heaps of stuff just to get to the first word. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 01:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• The template was used only on one article. In such cases, it is normal to have the template code placed on the article, and the template deleted. --Durin 12:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The arms is in the Public Domain copyright wise. The arms, according to the Australian Government, was created in 1921 due to a Royal Warrant. Since this was a government work, it will be 50 uears since creation before it can become public domain. So 1921 + 50 = 1971. It has been over 30 years since the copyright has expired. So it is safe to replace the arms photo drawn by Vector-Images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What Zscout said, plus most other countries (including the United States, Russia, and United Kingdom) all directly use the infobox country template and did not use a separate just for the infobox. Evidence for the PD is provided on Image:Image:Aust Coat of Arms (large).jpg by Zscout and just a little by me. Though the image, like the canadian flag, may be restricted for certain uses by national laws. Kevin_b_er 02:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• If this particular graphical representation of the arms is from 1921, then I agree. But, understand that the coat of arms is a description. Graphical representations of it can be made by anyone, anytime. It is important to know what the source of the image to properly understand what the dating on it is. Even if the coat of arms is updated in 1921, I could create a graphic from that description today, and claim some rights to the image. That's why having the source is important, so we can verify the status. Without it, we are presuming the image is from 1921 which could be a false presumption. In this particular case, we have capitulated our decision about the copyright decision to vector-images.com, which has made mistakes before. I think this is improper, and have noted this elsewhere. I plan on doing some more general research into this in the future. --Durin 12:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mattisse

Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has gone on a rampage prodding and tagging articles simply because they are linked from Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium. The Starwood Festival is an extremely notable event in the pagan community which has been occuring annually since 1981. It features many notable authors in the pagan community. True, the articles read like promotional material, but this can be fixed. And yes, some of the authors linked are not notable and should be deleted. But Mattisse is not bothering to discriminate between notable and non-notable individuals, and is prodding and tagging longstanding articles about notable authors without doing any research, checking Amazon, etc. He appears to be on an anti-pagan vendetta. -999 (Talk) 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not the only example of this behaviour, I have been a victim as well in an article about software of all things. He tagged up AppleShare with innappropriate tags, and (as is too common) failed to put any reasoning for the tags in the talk page. When I removed them and asked him to post his reasons, he re-tagged with a PROD notice instead. I have asked him on several occasions to explain his logic, but invariably he instead comes up with other (equally invalid IMHO) complaints.

His talk page and edit list are filled with examples of similar PROD tagging, literally dozens today alone. It appears he has good intensions, but seems unwilling to do the legwork required to tag articles correctly, and then gets upset when someone calls him on it. I believe a block is in order, but because I have "had words" with him prior to this (note to self: check talk pages carefully and don't take things personally!) it could be construed as bias. Suggestions? Maury 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no indication of this in the page history for AppleShare. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like AppleSearch is the article Maury meant... —Hanuman Das 09:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax, isn't it? In that case, I have to say that missing citation tags don't seem unreasonable to me, since the article does not include any reliable sources, just references to Apple-produced documents. I wouldn't agree with the suggested merge, but that's not a hanging offense. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought WP:V allowed for the use of self-published documentation as long as it was only used for an article about the piece of software involved. Of course, it'd be nice to have third-party refs in addition, so I also don't seem a problem with "citation needed" tags. However, I think the OP was referring to actions further back in the history involving multiple placements of tags and prodding the article, which seems a bit extreme to me. —Hanuman Das 13:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you have missed the crux of my complaint. First there was the drive-by tagging, which added tags that took up half the page. ONE of these tags complained about citations. None of them included any comment on the talk page. I asked Mattisse to clarify, and removed the tags (while improving the article with a number of minors, including new refs). When I returned, the page had a PROD on it. In the talk page was a completely different set of complaints, none of which addressed the original four tags. It snowballed from there, with comments left on other users pages about how I "refused" to add references, even though they were already there in the first place. And now the article is sprinkled with CITEs on seemingly random points, again, with no explaination of what he/she wants a cite for (for instance, that first one in AppleSearch, what exactly is the cite being asked for?).

This particular article doesn't even really bother me, and Mattisse has apparently lost all interest in it (and apparently the wiki in general, although that claim has been made before as well). The real issue here is that when I investigated his/her other edits, the VAST MAJORITY are PROD tags, the vast majority of those with no comment on the talk page. Many of those, including dozens yesterday, have no basis other than Mattisse found them by following What Links Here from a page. He/she PRODed Wolfe for instance, even I know this guy from the physics world.

The pattern is clear: first a whack of tags is added to an article with no explaination whatsoever. When an editor removes these and asks for clarification, Mattisse immediately hits the article with a PROD. When the user removes that, Mattisse complains on other people's pages that the author is being uncooperative, and then smacks the article with CITEs.

This behaviour is disruptive and counterproductive.

By the way, how is it you feel that TidBits is an "Apple-produced document". And what's wrong with referencing Apple-produced products about an Apple product? Maury 13:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to your question on my talk page, I have attempted to clarify some of my remarks about self-published sources on your talk page. As for the initial tags, most of them seem fairly reasonable. The article didn't have in-line citations or clearly reputable third-party sources, and some passages (such as "Sadly when AppleSearch was released, Rosebud did not ship with it. Of course the utility of a newspaper engine given only local text files to search from is likely limited, but with the coming of the web the product would have had some utility. Even modern news aggregators generally don't offer the display quality or ease of use of Rosebud, which dates to around 1991.") were written in an un-encyclopedic tone. She proposed that it be deleted after you removed these tags without addressing the underlying issues (which have since been largely addressed), and while a Prod may have been a bit extreme, she was within her rights to do so if she felt that the article was unsalvagable. As for TidBITS, I do not consider it a reliable source because the section in question was not published in a print medium, but rather an e-mail newsletter. It might be a partial qualifier given the authorship of the newsletter, but it's a debatable point. The source in the trade publication appears to be derived from an Apple press release, making it equally debatable, and the Czech website is pretty clearly unreliable. The good news is that there probably ARE better sources out there for this article, given the abundance of third-party publications about Apple and the Mac; they just need to be found and included. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to backtrack a bit on the Software Industry Report citation. It looks a bit more reputable on second glance than I'd initially supposed, though better sourcing in the article would still be a plus. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Mattisse seems to have a thing about Wiccan claims. He also has gone after Margot Adler several times, tagging it but (so far) refusing to discuss why he applied the tags.

Atlant 18:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

p.s. User:Mattisse is a she, formally know as User:KarenAnn. --Salix alba (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strenuous Protest

I am lodging an objection to 999 (talk · contribs)'s conduct in trying to unduly influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber. 999 writes:

Note - nominator has an active complaint against her from two parties on WP:AN/I for inappropriate tagging, prodding, etc. over two separate vendettas she is conducting, one against pagan authors, so yes, this is relevant. -999 (Talk) 18:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a blatant ad hominem argument. An AFD is meant to be an impartial discussion on the article's merits in accordance with Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines. 999's personal opinion of the nominator, Mattisse has no place there. Quite frankly, I am appalled by 999's conduct in trying to unduly influence and interfere with an AFD discussion related to this dispute. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  18:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• On this, you get a great big Amen from me. AfD's should go as they go. If someone nominates an obvious keep, it'll get keep votes. An absurd nomination will achieve a quick result. That people view AfD nomination as an hostile act is understandable, but AfD is not an arena. The nominator's character has little to do with the consideration, and listing things for AfD is only evidentiary if they're engaging in some massive WP:POINT violation. This isn't one. Geogre 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Thomist

I am not sure what, if anything, to do about Thomist (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). He seems to be pushing a heavy barrow uphill. Most of his fights seem to be with C56C (talk · contribs). Just zis Guy you know? 21:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to do something about this.[145] C56C 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked? and I don't even know how to edit.

Today (Aug 21) I tried to click on the featured article, "Sesame Street", and received a notice that I have been blocked from editing because of vandalism. I was not trying to edit and I don't even know how to -- I was simply trying to read the article -- so this blocking for vandalism is a mystery to me.

Maybe someone with a similar IP address should have been blocked and a typo was made.

Would someone please explain why I am blocked from reading this article?

Would you please correct the situation?

Thank you, Brian O'Reilly

You are not blocked now because you were able to edit this page.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 23:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You got an orange bar which you clicked on to find a message about vandalism, I guess. That was probably left there to discourage an earlier user of your IP adress (internet providers move them around their customers regularly). You can disregard it. A block doesn't prevent you from reading articles, only from editing them. (PS. You do know how to edit, since you just did!) -Splash - tk 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is probably due to your using either AOL or an AOL-owned Internet service provider. They "roll" their Internet protocol (IP) addresses frequently during a given online session. Given the numbers of people on AOL, some of them are bound to be vandals. When they get warned or even blocked, the block will be for a short time (due to the quick rolling of IP addresses) and then you'll be assigned their old IP address and seem to see yourself blocked or warned. Geogre 01:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In this case the IP was Sympatico in Canada and it has no talk page active. I'm not sure how Brian got the orange message bar unless he actually tried to edit. In this case, it was probably an autoblock caused by a blocked user previously using that IP address. ISPs sometimes change their addressing, or a user can forcibly assign themselves a new address, meaning the old address gets assigned to someone else. You can avoid these messages by registering for a user name, even if you don't plan to edit. If you continue to read wikipedia without logging in, you may continue to occasionally get these warning messages left for the previous users of the IP address you happen to be assigned. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

When reading articles this happens when an unregistered user clicks on a redlink instead of a bluelink. FloNight ^talk 15:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Range blocks on Charter et al. by Jayjg vs. Zephram Stark

Jayjg has blocked a bunch of /24s in Charter and other ISPs for long periods, such as a year or indefinite, for the reason "Zephram Stark." I unblocked one range today that had been blocked indefinitely, in response to a complaint. At first glance, this seems like too many IP addresses to be blocking for so long, but I don't really have the time to dig into each. Can others take a look and see if this is the right thing or if perhaps these blocks need to be adjusted? Demi ^T/_C 02:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is way to long for a range block in general, since the main reason for a range block is to combat vandals on dynamic ips; although as Demi said, I don't know the specifics of every block, this is just what it seems on the surface.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 02:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who edits from a dynamic Charter IP, I think this is really inappropriate. Anyone who blocks dynamic addresses indefinately, or even for a long time, should review the meaning of dynamic again.

All I see is him blocking a few ranges for a month or 3 (all of those blocks have expired already), and he also blocked a few open proxies. And these were all from May and June... is this really an issue? Cowman109^Talk 02:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The following IP address ranges were blocked for a year or indefinitely, not counting the range I unblocked (yes, this was in April or May, but the blocks still stand, and for range blocks on consumer Internet access allocations, I'm not sure any block should run so long):

• 24.240.62.0/24 - Charter
• 24.240.63.0/24 - Charter
• 206.176.211.0/24 - Datawave Technologies
• 71.10.121.0/24 - Charter
• 71.10.115.0/24 - Charter
• 68.115.11.0/24 - Charter
• 65.145.31.0/24 (6 mos. actually) - Qwest
• 68.115.9.0/24 - Charter
• 68.115.14.0/24 - Charter
• 68.115.13.0/24 - Charter

Demi ^T/_C 03:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you asked Jayjg about it? Since he is a checkuser, his is in a position to know if any good editors use those ranges. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Jayjg. There might be a good reason for the blocks (assuming that those ranges have been indefinitely blocked). However, it is difficult to think of any reason for blocking an IP indefinitely unless it is an open proxy. Blocking a range for months is much more difficult to justify, in my opinion, let alone indefinitely. I think one of those blocks might cover one of my relative's IP addresses (they do not edit Wikipedia). I'd have to check, though. If it doesn't cover it, it is pretty close. It might be a good idea to post an explanation to the Administrators' Noticeboard when doing something like that, since people are likely to wonder what is going on when they notice it. :-) -- Kjkolb 12:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Demi, it would have been better to ask Jay about this directly. Bringing issues with other admins here is fine if you can't otherwise make progress, but it shouldn't be the first port of call. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a while ago, now, but as I recall Zephram Stark was busy creating all sorts of sockpuppets (at least 125 at last count), and the range blocks were slowing him down. As you no doubt noticed, the longer blocks were all from early April; as you no doubt also noticed, after that I started using shorter blocks. The ranges themselves were small (256 IPs), and typically checked to make sure only Zeprham was using them. The first two on the list, for example, were from a small company that Zephram often posted from. I've unblocked them all now (well, all but the ones that were already unblocked) - thanks for bringing this to my attention, and feel free to approach me individually in the future, as noted in SV's comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Eagle 101/WikiVoter

<moved to WP:AN> User:Zoe|(talk) 02:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joke RFA, please investigate

Please note the creation of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Splinter which redirected to the TMNT character. It was filed by new editor Nobodygotnobiscorotoboto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and featured deliberate confusion between Splinter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and SpIinter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I'm done for the day but some stern warnings and/or blocks should probably be handed out. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

205.188.117.13 (talk · contribs) is also involved. AOL of course. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

All editors involved have been indef blocked. Sasquatch t|c 05:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell me you didn't indefinitely block the AOL proxy, please. Geogre 12:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's all clear. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jmac1811

It appears that this user doesn't understand the concept of reliable sources, as shown by his/her recent contributions, such as portraying DJ Mbenga as a future Hall of Famer. Can someone counsel him/her? 04:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent Vandalism on Hipcrime (Usenet)

Dipslime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been persistently vandalising this article. Through several sockpuppets. He's re-uploaded 3 images and continually applies them to the article. Short of full protection on the article, anyone have any suggestions for dealing with this? He's continually blocked, and the images deleted, but creates more and more socks.--Crossmr 04:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yavari Govain (talk · contribs)

theres a pesky one that i havnt been able to get rid of or really found out how to report.

Yavari Govain

she has made consistant vandalism to the richmond california article including more than 3rr to the citys info box particularly the population and square milleage and many racially insensative comments like thats where the rich white people live and making stuff up like calling the 23rd street business ditrict mexico town and renaming the richmond parkway highway 93 when there is no such california state route, however it is a proposal. she has also made lots of vandalism to the North Richmond california page i know she has been yelled at for vandalising the Fairfield California Page she writes terribly and unintelligabley and im sure she has messed up other pages, it hought u might be able to help out.Qrc2006 04:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there is the 3rr noticeboard if she's edit warring, the vandalism noticeboard for vandalism, and WP:PAIN if she makes personal attacks. If there is uncivil behaviour, provide some diffs here so that it could be looked at by other editors.--Crossmr 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Errr. also hasn't editted in over half a month... Sasquatch t|c 05:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Homophobic fag

Homophobic fag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). This is clearly an inappropriate username. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 08:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by User:CanadianCaesar. --james^(talk) 08:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, obviously inappropriate names like that can be reported at WP:AIV. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

Not a report of vandalism, but a request to clean up a mess and protect a page against moves. The page 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot has been moved around alot since it was created due to disputes over the name. The last days people have been very careless in moving it, resulting in loads of unfixed double redirects (all fixed now) and even a situation were the talk page and real page were no longer on the same name:

Article:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot and Talk:Talk:August 10, 2006 alleged transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot (just fixed it by moving the talk page)

I would like to request an administrator to protect this page from moving/renaming until the dispute has been solved. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is already move protected:

07:11, August 22, 2006 Mets501 (Talk | contribs) m (Protected August 10, 2006 alleged transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot: to stop the "move war". Awaiting end of title poll on talk page. [move=sysop])

12:52, August 22, 2006 Mets501 (Talk | contribs) m (moved August 10, 2006 alleged transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot to 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot: back to original title, what most people prefer (per talk page)). --james^(talk) 08:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, hadn't noticed because the talk page was not protected and in the wrong place. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Andykentisi and various Celtic connection theories

User:Andykentisi has been adding some outdated connections to Celtic tribes to articles about Netherlands and Bavaria. Both connections are clearly outdated see Boii and Batavians. It could be genuine contributions (although misguided) or sneaky vandalizm, so I feel I need another pair of eyes and feedback should there be more edits of that kind. Agathoclea 11:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Yankees76

This user, who is not any level of Wiki member higher than a first day account creator, has left repeated threats on my user talk page accusing me of vandalism, bad grammar, and conducting original research. He has also threatened to have me banned from using my own talk page (sic). Basically the issues are over some bodybuilding and bodybuilding supplement articles (Creatine and Designer Whey Protein). I edited some articles and immediately before even discussing them on the article's discussion page he gave me warnings that I was a vandal (Is immediately calling someone a vandal a civil way to discuss changes?). I reverted the edits with some compromises, gave my reasons and he gave me ominous "Final Warnings" he appears to have created the articles or considers them his pet project. Anyone who edits them is a vandal. Basically his childish hostility is ridiculous. If he had discussed the changes with me it could have been a civil and productive exchange. I am open to compromise. Instead he immediately becomes hostile and threatens people with his imagined powers and then attempts to intimidate them. I am not concerned with who is right or wrong as to just getting this back to a civil and nonthreatening tone. If he had used that manner of conversing from the outset this whole exchange could have been avoided instead he assumes that the cause of all edits of his articles is vandalism and destruction of the articles. The amazing thing is the changes are picayune and harmless. How anyone could get so worked up about them is beyond me. One brand of protein is or isn't a top-seller one creatine formula is the only product shown to do such and such in studies. The way he responds with immediate threats and accusations is overboard and assumes motives I am alien to.Quadzilla99 12:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide some diffs. Your user talk page contains just one message (from you) right now, and I don't see much discussion from either of you on the talk pages of the articles concerned. Powers ^T 12:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just read through the Creatine talk page and it appears he also threatened to have another user banned (sic). I do not see him on the list of administrators. It appears he likes to intimidate editors with false claims citing his imaginery powers. This is not a productive way to discuss articles although if people believe it it ensure your changes are the accepted ones. Personally I have used Wikipedia since college and only recently started editing. I have seen very few actual administrators threaten to ban people and use intimidation on people so freely. Please look into this.Quadzilla99 12:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to look through the history of my talk page and the edit histories of the two articles. Also the discussion pages of the two articles. There isn't much there that's the point. I don't see enough to warrant calling me a vandal and leaving me warnings on my userpage threatening to have me banned from various activities.Quadzilla99 12:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the pages in question, I don't think Yankees76 has acted unreasonably. He's removed unsourced statements from articles, discussed changes on talk pages, and applied standard boilerplate warnings to a user's talk page. Unless I'm missing something ghastly (in which case, as LtPowers said, diffs would be helpful), this seems like exactly the sort of content dispute that doesn't belong here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't beleive I was acting unreasonable at all. The 'threats' are simply first-level warnings, and reminders only (boilerplate warnings). I've not created any of the pages in question (as claimed above), and I fully understand that no ownership of articles is granted to any editor. I've given no vandalism warnings to the user above either - only reminders about POV, providing an edit summary, and about removing legitimate warnings from his/her talk page (and a friendly reminder to check spelling). I've simply done the job of a Wikipedia editor in removing unsourced content, opinion, and edits that are of a non-neutral point of view or contain corporate bias. The language in the boilerplate warnings is beyond my control, and if the user takes offense to the wording, that's not my fault. Yankees76 14:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zmanm407

Zmanm407 (talk · contribs) has moved his userpage first to Stitchfanboy (in the main namespace) and now User:Zmanm407 AKA User:StitchFanBoy (yes, that's the full title, with two "User:"s). I don't know if this was intended as a poor-man's request for username change or what, but it seems like a bad idea.

Zmanm407 also has a problem with fair use images on his user page; I've removed fair-use images twice, warning him each time, and I'm about to do so a third time. They're different images each time, so he seems to understand that the images I removed aren't appropriate, but fails to extrapolate that to future images he wants to put up. Orphanbot is also a regular visitor to his talk page.

So, assuming that it's inappropriate to move one's user page without a corresponding changed username, could I have an administrator move his user page back to User:Zmanm407 (I can't move over the redirect myself)? Also, maybe this administrator could talk to him about his fair-use image usage? Thanks. Powers ^T 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the page back and cleaned up the redirects. Normally even non-admins would be able to undo a move like this, but the page had been moved twice, meaning the software considered the edit history non-empty. I've also left the user a note pointing him to WP:CHU. --bainer (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MascotGuy's lost cousin?

A user by the name of Kyereh Mireku (talk · contribs) has been vandalising pages related to children's animation and television for quite some time (starting on August 7th). Despite the warnings this account has received, the account has not been blocked yet. Please do so before he or she wrecks havoc all over the target articles. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 14:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.228.10.185 - repeated abuse, personal attacks, and threats of future vandalism

User:71.228.10.185 has repeatedly abused Wikipedia policies. This user has been warned numerous times by editors and administrators, please see User talk:71.228.10.185. The warnings have been ignored, which has lead to being blocked three times in the last month. Most recently 71.228.10.185 made this edit from 8/21/06 accusing another editor of vandalism in the edit summary but none was apparent. This constitutes a personal attack on User:John Broughton. This has been a frequent behavior, please see 71.228.10.185's contributions. I posted the standard npa template on 71.228.10.185's talk page. In response a severe ad hominem attack was placed on my talk page. Please see Edit from 8/22/06. This edit summary accuses me of belonging to a pedophile group, threatens to revert all of my future edits, admits to sock-puppetry, and uses abusive / profane language. Clearly this user has shown no interest in reforming their behavior. I kindly ask that User:71.228.10.185 be permanently blocked. I realize that is a severe punishment, but I feel it is necessary given the situation. Thank you. Propol 14:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Noted and the IP was blocked for 1 month after it experienced a 1 week block before. There's no way to block an IP indefinitely. -- Szvest 14:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

[edit] Sinagogue of Satan

The talk page on this problematic article (at Talk:Sinagogue of Satan) has been edited to include a redirect link through a South Carolina TV station (to make it look like the Sinagogue has had some coverage from the station, I guess). Not exactly a huge problem, but it worries me that these guys will rumble back to life again. -- Mikeblas 15:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:KDRGibby

Hello. Is the person who previously edited under the name of KDRGibby still banned from wikipedia? I have noticed that this same person has made a return under the name of CosmopolitanCapitalist. He is easy to identify because he has the exact same tendentious editing style, dogmatism, intellectual laziness, and horrendous spelling that KDRGibby had; and of course, he's editing the same pages (participatory economics, classical liberalism, etc.), forcing the same lame arguments. Are you aware of this? And if you are, could you please update me on his status at wikipedia? Thanks! BernardL 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I blocked this editor as a sock of KDRGibby, who is banned from Wikipedia under his general probation in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Wiarthurhu - community block?

Wiarthurhu (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for a week for personal attacks and disruption, only to come back to continue with incivil edits such as this and this. The user has long been causing disruption on the encyclopedia and is picking out fights with people innapropriately, so I would like to propose a longer community block on him, or would suggest an arbitration case against him. I blocked him for an additional 3 hours for the above comments, but he is beginning to exhaust my patience, at least ;). Cowman109^Talk 17:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And exhaust my patience, he has. This user has been named in three separate MedCab actions, two of which no one has taken due to Wiarthurhu's pattern behavior of incivility. By my count, there are at least 150 separate instances where Wiarthurhu is in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. He has engaged in 44 separate violations of WP:CIVIL, 46 separate personal attacks, disrupted the encyclopedia to make a point at least 15 times, and he still can't get the hint after being blocked twice for personal attacks. It's time we do something about this, folks. CQJ 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the time is nigh for high time to get rid of this guy one last time. --Cyde Weys 17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A real problem user. I might support arbitration but I doubt it would help much. I would support a community ban. --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been keeping tabs on his post-ban behavior. (Full disclosure, I requested the initial MedCab action and posted the RfC on this user). While he's been less blatant in his policy and guideline violations, he's already been responsible for two WP:RS violations, citing a forum and a 1-word model label as sources for disputed statements, as well as several WP:CIVIL violations in his edit comments. --Mmx1 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Wiarthurhu for exhausting the community's patience and disruption. Cowman109^Talk 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IG Farben Building

There's been coordinated. and rather unpleasant, vandalism from the usual suspects to IG Farben Building this evening: would someone mind taking the offending vandalized revisions out of the article, lest they be used to beat Wikipedia with by the vandals and their friends? The revisions in question are from 21:04, 22 August 2006 to the revision immediately before 21:21, 22 August 2006.-- The Anome

Thanks to Raul654 for sorting this, and also telling me how to use the UI efficiently when there are hundreds of revisions involved. -- The Anome 21:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AOL proxy pool

Has anyone else noticed that the traditional AOL proxy pool is growing? that IPs in the 152, 64, and 205 are popping up that have never been used before. Is it possible AOL is working towards restoring these to their pre-2004 status as dynamic, rather than proxy ranges? It might mean an end to virtually all AOL related issues if it were true, no more autoblocks, no more vandalbots, not more ceiling cats--152.163.100.65 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jigsaw12

• This user has been causing trouble at the talk page here: [[146]]

I believe he was warned not to do personal attacks again, but he has continued. All I basically said was I disagree with what he posted, and then he replied with a personal attack. His personal attack was cleaned up (because I guess he figured he could get away with it, if it didn't sound so bad). But in either case, it's still a personal attack. RobJ1981 21:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Moe Epsilon gave him his last warning a while ago, and he seems to have stopped. If he starts back up again, report him to WP:PAIN. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, apparently I can't read dates and times. He, in fact, has made attacks after his final warning. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

He;s been posting personal attacks for a while now, apparently he sees nothing with calling someone/something "gay". I aska temporary block be placed as you can see through the revision history of Talk:World Wrestling Entertainment roster and his contributions, that he's being just a plain troublemaker. — Moe Epsilon 23:04 August 22 '06

I've given him a 24 hour block. JoshuaZ 23:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User blanking userpage and political talk pages

Galmiche has been blanking the talk page of the Ron Saxton article and his own talk page after he contested an external link removal. He has been warned, but continues to do this. --Liface 23:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the talkpage removal is the user removing what may be a poorly thought-out response of theirs to an editing conflict. I'm not convinced that it is vital that comment stay on that page. Jkelly 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)