Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive179

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Young Argo/Thug Invasion 2 user Eupator 3 User IP:63.88.36.208 4 Template needs speedy 5 Vandalism 6 User:Grkbkny69 7 Possible Israel related articles deletion conspiracy/vote stacking 8 Imposter of a living person 9 Wikipedia:Independent sources 10 User:Private Butcher 11 IP 12 Request for {{sprotected}} to be added to List of entertainers by nickname 13 Request for {{sprotected}} to be added to Jen (Power Rangers) 14 Disruptive, oft minority POV attemps to own Martin Luther article, usually without productive discussion at talk page 15 Roobit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16 Edit warring 17 Edit war at Unikkatil 18 vanished without a trace? 19 Google Web Accelerator IP to block 20 Civility block for review 21 AfD vote spamming 22 User:Rancearse personal attacks 23 Censorship? By whom? 24 repeated obscenites 25 Setchcr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 26 3sb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 27 Block evasions 28 Crculver 29 Antichrist and devil accusations 30 List of publications in philosophy 31 Undeletion of Article 32 The office of Bridgestone is editing Firestone page 33 Kurdish related cfds 34 Spammer 35 Vandalism from IP 159.250.29.81 36 Revert warring over {{lowercase}} 37 Tom Harrison 38 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A Revert War 39 User:169.139.119.16 Vandalism 40 User:63.96.196.195 is back from 48 hour block 41 indefblocked user PN.P. p (talk · contribs) vandalizing his own talk page 42 Off-wiki attack 43 Block review (image misuse) 44 User:1B6 45 Help with repeated recreation and removal of speedy deletion tags on article Medi-Kill 46 URGENT:User:WORLDJKD 47 Impersonation by User:Hamsacharya duh 48 User:218.188.3.113 49 Wuggsy (talk · contribs) 50 Vandalism 51 User:Proraceskier1232 52 Football article again 53 Fooqiman 54 User:AnonMoos 55 Blocked sock of MascotGuy; review 56 User:Jinglebellsjingle 57 Copyright infringement in Periyar 58 User:Imjohn 59 Support a ban of 209.188.200.126 60 user:82.22.187.20 61 Review of Admin Actions 62 Persistent IP vandal bordering on harassment 63 User:Jrapidfire 64 User:Mcjewzy 65 Quick question 66 odd behaviour 67 Request block review of User:BlasgRefeifeg 68 User:Raspor 68.1 Raspor's agenda 68.2 Proposed community ban 69 Personal info issue 70 Userbox categories 71 Is this RfA spam, or acceptable behaviour? 72 POV-pushing on GQ article 73 Difference 74 User:24.60.163.16

[edit] Young Argo/Thug Invasion

I have nominated the above articles for deletion (regarding a deceased rapper and his unreleased album, they seem likely hoaxes or at best wholly unverifiable). Jeezy123 is the originator and principal editor of both. Soon after the AfD was posted, this user blanked the AfD page and removed the AfD notice from Young Argo, while apparent single-purpose account Theresa12 did the same for Thug Invasion. I hope an admnistrator will consider appropriate notices for these editors and that eyes will be kept on the AfD (which, given the time lost when it was unavailable, I moved from January 13 to January 14). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertissimo (talk • contribs)

Jeezy123 continues to interfere in the AfD, most recently by overwriting opinions to delete. An adminstrator's attention to his edit history would be much appreciated (and apologies for not previously signing the above). Robertissimo 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user Eupator

I would like admin's interference with behaviour of user Eupator. I have applied to assistance procedure regarding dispute on Urartu page. The dispute was considered and my editing was approved [1] SilkTork identified that future editing (my part) should be discussed with him. However, user Eupator (and Nareklm as well) did editing without further consultation. Eupator and other Armenian users are harrasing me, and they even don't conceal that they are revenging [2] ("since you opened that can of worms deal with the facts"). I have already complained about personal attack from Eupator on page Paytakaran. He went unpunished and continue his inappropriate behavior. You can look at my talk page - they placing questionable warnings on my talkpage [3] and other things, imposing their POV. Almost all my editing are checked by them and either reverted or in other manner modified. While I understand that from formal point of view everyone can edit what s/he want, there is also evidences of wikistalking. Such users like Eupator should be banned from editing. --Dacy69 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Like i said that was a friendly notice you were one edit away from reaching the limit and no one has ever warned you so it was a friendly notice theres no reason for this and this was my first time not "Numerous" times as the sentence expresses itself. Also your post concerns me it is not wikistalking if you check the history ive posted here before so please don't even start accusing i have nearly 400 articles on my watch list. [4] the only reason you are reporting this is so that you can edit freely without people judging your edits that are POV or bias or misleading people. Nareklm 01:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The main concern of this post is Eupator, not you, Nareklm, though you should also restrain from certain things. Since you always removed my edits I doubted your friendly notice which I don't need.--Dacy69 04:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is in danger of getting lost in the shuffle here. Follow up at my user page with page diffs rather than links. Durova^Charge 20:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User IP:63.88.36.208

User talk: 63.88.36.208 This user has received multiple warnings and is back to vandalising pages. Most recently to Witch trial, which I reverted. A block may be in order. Web Warlock 17:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to report it at WP:AIV. Proto::► 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template needs speedy

Template:User Sexy was requested for a db-empty after the creating editor asked for it to be deleted. But the speedy tag was removed because the tag ended up transcluded on all of the user pages that included the userbox template. I have placed the db-author tag on the template's talk page directly under the section where the author asks for deletion. The intention is for deletion of the template, not the talk page, but if I understood the template deletion criteria page, then this is the way to go and I should ask an admin to help in removing the template article (which is why I posted here now). Anyone lend a hand on this one? Thanks. ju66l3r 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind, User:PFHLai just took care of it. Response time: -00:30s. Niice. ju66l3r 19:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean they did it in negative 0.3 of a second? Now that's what I call service! :) --Guinnog 20:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

There is persistant vandalism on the article Jo O'Meara relating to controversies surrounding her involvement in Big Brother and alleged racism. Could someone help stop this?--Conjoiner 20:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request at WP:AIV and/or WP:RFPP as appropriate. Raymond Arritt 20:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What should I request?--Conjoiner 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There will be extra interest because she is on the news. So i'll add it to my watch list for a while and ask others to do the same. I'm watching the current vandal, and will block if he keeps it up. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Grkbkny69

• Grkbkny69 (talk · contribs)

User:Grkbkny69 User continuously vandalizes pages of musicians he doesn't like and increases sales of artist he does like. He has been doing this for months and makes peoples jobs harder, and he has yet to be perma banned. He was banned in the past and came back with a second account. He needs to be blocked. License2Kill 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Could please supply some diffs? I looked around myself at his contributions, but couldn't see an obvious vandalism. Though I can see he has been making a lot of changes to numbers, though I don't know enough about this music and I don't have enough time to be able to tell the difference between if he is correcting them of making them be wrong instead. However... I did come across this [5], which breaks WP:NPA. Mathmo ^Talk 23:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Israel related articles deletion conspiracy/vote stacking

I feel really uncomfortable about what I've been noticing and think this should at least be brought up for attention here. I just noticed there is a recent string of Israeli law firms and lawyers up for AfD or tagged for notability and all of them have come from either User:Ju66l3r or User:Edcolins and with one exception, all of them include votes by one or the other, depending on who created the AfD. The AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yigal Arnon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Horowitz & Co., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamburger Evron & Co., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eitan Law Group . I find this very troubling possible vote stacking. At User talk:Ju66l3r, there is actual discussion between the two in deleting ALL Category:Law firms in Israel articles! [6] I won't charge an anti-israeli POV, but with all the anti-Semitism I've encountered recently in Wikipedia (I'm an active editor on the Richard Perle article for example, where I've had to delete some vicious anti-Semitic remarks [7]), I'm very disturbed that law firms or lawyers from this country are singled out for deletion. I've removed some of their added notability tags and added at least one reference every time.--Oakshade 23:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Those anti-semitic remarks you deleted weren't posted by either of these editors. Did you miss this post where they revised the idea and trimmed down the number of firms they planned to nominate based on notability guidelines?[8] Bigotry certainly exists in the world, but WP:AGF says Wikipedians should be slow to conclude that in an ambiguous situation. Both of these are established editors with good track records. Durova^Charge 01:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to my response to your baseless suggestions. In short, I "random article'd" the first contribution I saw from Elite compact (talk · contribs) that I felt needed to be submitted to AfD. Further investigation showed a category largely populated with articles with no assertion of notability (and my opinion on that matter was validated by admins who deleted those articles per db-bio as tagged by Edcolins). For other articles, I felt some assertion was made, but unsubstantiated and my own searches could not provide any verifiable notability (other than existence and press releases). Those were submitted for AfD (and some of those are uncontested). The only reason I have been involved in a number of Israel-related articles is because the creator of those articles wrote articles that fell short of meeting notability guidelines. If that user had written a number of poor articles/stubs about Mexican gymnasts, then I would have just as readily discussed and submitted them all instead (and perhaps, I would still be here defending my good name against someone claiming I'm anti-Hispanic or anti-flexibility, who knows). Thanks for your passive-aggressive assertions tying my good faith work to anti-Semitism. ju66l3r 01:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ju6613r, since I've already called out Oakshade on the bias issue, that last sentence looks excessive. Would you be willing to do a strikethrough as a gesture of good faith? Durova^Charge 02:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right; I think that I was a bit excessive on retrospect. I was a bit heated after finding these same comments spammed across multiple AfDs that I chose to contribute or initiate on this topic (and had the comment replaced when I pushed it to the discussion talk page on one of them). Strike done, my apologies. ju66l3r 02:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Spammed" is offensive. The comments were edited in only 3 of of the AfD's of Israeli law firms. Under the same criteria, one could argue that tagging almost ALL of the Israel law firm articles with either notability tags or AfDs is a much greater example of spamming, but since I consider editing and constructive critisism of edits not spam, I withold such a slur as I wish you had. --Oakshade 04:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oakshake, Ju6613r extended an olive branch by striking through a statement despite your rather stinging accusation of prejudice. In the etymological sense it is you who have pre-judged. Would you return the good faith by striking through the bias allegation? Everyone here seems to be a good editor and honest misunderstandings happen sometimes. Respectfully, Durova^Charge 20:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I made it very clear above that I'm not charging an anti-Israeli POV. As you mentioned in the responses in the AfD's, it's important to look out for something like that and when two users discuss tagging every Israeli law firm article, it does rais eybrows. As Edcolins indicates below, I wasn't the only editor who took notice of this [9]. Still, this was no accusation. Please note that this section starts with the word "possible" and the introduction simply asked for attention. I appreciate other people looking into this as you have done, Durova. I will take your word that due to these users histories, there is not a demonstration of something anti-Israeli occurring. As far as the spamming comment, if Ju6616r strikes the spamming slur, I'll strike the response.--Oakshade 23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It probably all happened in good faith. Problems on one page aren't supposed to spill over into others, but we're all human. I'm glad there are people looking out for biased deletion campaigns because sometimes that does happen. Durova^Charge 02:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Oakshade, I understand your feeling and of course it was not my intention to make you uncomfortable. My sole intention was to improve, in good faith and with no hidden motivation, a bunch of articles on the notability front. Regarding the allegation of possible conspiracy, Shuki already made a remark calling my contributions a crusade [10] i.e. "a vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc." I have already replied here, explaining that assuming good faith and neutrality are fundamental principles to me. Nothing to add to what I have already written. --Edcolins 20:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imposter of a living person

[11] [12] [13]

The editor claimed to be David Levine and now has changed to Bruce Levine. That is clear DECEPTION. This is worse the any sockpuppet ever could be. This is against the spirit of Wikipedia. That editor has stolen my identity. I wish to remain private about this though. I clicked on the article about what links here at the Bruce Levine article and then that imposter user's page showed up. This is identity theft. This incident requires immediate attention. 65.147.95.60 02:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you are making this statement about a user in good standing, perhaps you can understand if we're skeptical of your claim. If you have anyway to prove that you're the said Mr. Levine, however, by all means, please tell us how. -Patstuart^talk|edits 03:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe it's a rather interesting coincidence... ★MESSEDROCKER★ 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Independent sources

I just speedy deleted the above page. I created it as an essay, and mine were the main contributions to the page, a couple were adding see also's and correcting grammar and wikification. I created it on a false premise, that it would explore the need for an article topic to have independent sourcing discuss it to warrant an article. It appears to have been interpreted more broadly than that, and is being pushed as a deletion tool. This was not my intent, therefore I'm asserting my right under the speedy criteria to delete it. I would have created it in user space had I realised it would be misinterpreted, therefore my mistake was in the arena of creation. I realise the essay has been linked to somewhat, so I am posting the decision here for review. Hiding Talk 13:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been linked too quite a lot, from several AfDs and talk pages. Having a red-link there might make those discussions seem a bit meaningless. I'd favour blanking and protecting with an appropriate message explaining what happened, and directing those who followed links from an AfD to see the history of the page to see what version of the article the linker was referring to. Carcharoth 14:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Have it back, I give up, I withdraw. The insanity of this place kills me. Hiding Talk 15:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry if that upset you. I thought it was a reasonable way to handle the situation. If you feel strongly about an essay, the User namespace is the best place to develop it. As you've seen, stuff in the Wikipedia namespace can be seized upon and/or rewritten fairly quickly. That's how Wikipedia works. I suggest you take an early version of your essay and develop in your user space until you are happy with it, then advertise it, then move it to the Wikipedia namespace. The discussion on the talk page, Wikipedia talk:Independent sources helps with some understanding of what went wrong. The name ambiguity was a problem, as you say. Can't think of any suitable name for what you were trying to write about though, but I agree with your talk page comment, something is needed, though maybe as a point in a larger guideline. Carcharoth 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, I know I should have written it in the user space now, and that's the mistake which I believe gives me the legitimacy to delete it now as sole contributor. Still, it's done now. But the next time people complain about admins who WP:IAR, you all need to consider the fact that Wikipedia has conflicting processes and that some admins can't quite work out which hoop it is they are meant to jump through. Cheers, Hiding Talk 16:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not appropriate here. You need to ask the little dog jumping through all the hoops which one you should jump through... :-) Seriously, I noticed was that there was a substantial post on the talk page of that page, dating from today. You might have looked at the talk page before deleting, as I've had the rug pulled out from under me on talk pages before, as the main page (and its associated talk page) get speedy deleted. In fact, I think the CSD criteria should include something about checking the talk page for recent discussion, as good-faith discussion on the talk page of any page would indicate that CSD is not quite the right way to go. There is indirect mention of talk pages at WP:CSD#Procedure_for_administrators: "The talk page may refer to previous deletion discussions." I'm going to expand that to ask administrators to check talk pages before they speedy delete. I suspect many admins look at the page, then speedy delete both page and talk page with out looking at the talk page - which is obviously wrong. If you still believe that WP:CSD#G7 allowed you to delete that page, then please help to rephrase it to avoid future misunderstandings. Carcharoth 17:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Having looked a little bit further, I see that you've already apologised to the author of that post. My turn to apologise for bringing that up with out checking! I still don't understand why you think G7 allowed you to delete the page though. I don't see anyone agreeing with you on that. Carcharoth 17:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's restored, so why are we still discussing it. Like I say, I could have dug my heels in and let people go to DRV, but I didn't because that's pointless. Someone else could have written a similar essay, but they didn't they wanted this one restored. I think the processes applied, other people differ. It's done now. Sometimes someone has to lose. Hiding Talk 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect someone would have restored it. I've seen several discussions like this where CSD G7 gets misinterpreted. I've never yet seen someone successfully get something deleted under G7 that the community had taken over and started using. And that's the reason why we are still discussing this - to avoid future misunderstandings like this. CSDs are not something that there is a wide latitude for interpretation on. For what it is worth, when the speedy deletion was contested, you could have undeleted and taken it to MfD instead. Anyway, apologies for dragging this out. I hope you understand why I felt I should clarify my understanding of these points. Carcharoth 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Private Butcher

Comnpromised account? Suddenly massive dumping of google video links into articles. I have indef. blocked until this is resolved. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But now I find another account, User:Private Bubutcher, who was doing the same thing. Something fishy. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The fish seems to be stinking. Spam account? Leave indef blocked. Yuser31415 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking into this one for several minutes and I think the indef is a good one: this user started by opposing several RfAs, vacillating between good and bad edits, approving several RfAs, disappearing for months (twice), claiming to need rehab, claiming to be a reformed vandal, and then apparently deciding that a mockumentary on Cairo, Illinois, deserves advertising. At best, this is an unstable individual. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP

Hi. It appears that 69.220.184.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has blatantly violated WP:3RR on his userpage, as well as making uncivil comments and personal attacks (one glance at his contributions will tell, I believe). I would suggest a 24h block. Yuser31415 21:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

IP now appears blocked for 48h. Yuser31415 21:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for {{sprotected}} to be added to List of entertainers by nickname

Requesting {{sprotected}} to be added to List of entertainers by nickname. The article has been targeted by one or several vandals using more than 10 IP addresses and accounts. I've added tags to the usernames, but this isn't stopping them. Considering there are so many, I propose this page be semiprotected. Chupper 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I filed a request at WP:RFPP. Hbdragon88 23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Luna Santin 23:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for {{sprotected}} to be added to Jen (Power Rangers)

Some guy keeps posting his email address on the page from multiple IP addresses. The IP is blocked but he will no doubt post from a new IP address shortly. Chupper 23:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Can also use WP:RFPP to request page protection. Luna Santin 23:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive, oft minority POV attemps to own Martin Luther article, usually without productive discussion at talk page

Please note the following edits by User:Justas Jonas:

• Predominantly edits one article: [14]
• Labels welcoming messages on their user-talk page as clutter, spam and unnecessary material: [15] & [16].
• Makes unfounded personal attacks against another user [17] and criticizes other user's edits with an air of superiority. Please see various edit summaries at [18] and Talk:Martin Luther.
• May post under an IP address to emphasize User:Justas Jonas' point: [19].
• Resembles a previously banned user, per another editor of Talk:Martin Luther: [20].
• One recent edit war is over the size of and content of the article's opening image infobox. Please see [21].
• Claims that another user's edits cause formatting and/or layout problems, when no-one else experiences such problems. Please see [22] again.
• Appears to ignore input and request for correspondence from much more senior editors. Please see [23] and [24].

I'm sincerely looking forward to hearing options on how this can be resolved. Most if not all other editors of the article are working together to gain FA status for this article. If I am indeed the only one in error here, or if you have some constructive feedback for me, please kindly advise. Keesiewonder 13:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Keesiewonder's analysis of the situation. This new user account is acting disruptively, and is obviously not a new user account. I agree with this new user that the article requires across-the-board condensation, and also that in the past things have gotten talked to death. However, simply coming in and slashing and burning is not the answer. --Mantanmoreland 15:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another user to add to the set: [25].

So, one question I have is do the following four accounts all stem from one person:

• Special:Contributions/Justas Jonas
  
• Special:Contributions/75.37.215.34
  
• Special:Contributions/Johann Friedrich
  
• Special:Contributions/Ptmccain
  

I do not have any personal experience with the last; I do with the first three. Keesiewonder 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a couple more: Special:Contributions/24.107.121.195 ; Special:Contributions/Bailan Keesiewonder 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser anybody? Circeus 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I filed a checkuser request --Keesiewonder 13:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser outcome is declined with the statement "Unfortunately, we don't have records for Ptmccain, so there is no way to check if this is him." Can someone explain to me how this is possible, if 1) WP intended to indefinitely ban a user, and if 2)subsequent usernames were determined to be sockpuppets of Ptmccain? Thanks for your insight ... Keesiewonder 10:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this AN/I receiving so little attention? Even if it is reasonable for records to no longer exist for Ptmccain, why was checkuser not run for the other 3 current usernames, checking to see whether they are all one and the same? Where else can I take this issue where it may receive some attention other than my own? Keesiewonder 00:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure whether this falls under some misdeed categories under Wikipedia rules, but this guy really doesn't recognise Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_or_social_networking_site or WP:POINT. I know that people have been blocked 'due to blogging'. I see a clear case of soapboxing here: ' Finland was a clear fascist state', 'So called Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania', 'Soviet Union never invaded Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania' 'in occupation of which all three Baltic satrapies now eagerly participate'.
The user also frequently resorts to personal assaults. [26].Constanz - Talk 08:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And yes, when looking the edit history of this user, see e.g [27] editing an archived discussion page. And once again, using Wikipedia as a tool to promote his views: 'Estonia could not have lost territory to Russia because it was not a country that could lose any territory', 'the Estonian ethnocratic state claims that it is miraculous reincarnation of the ethnofascist dictatorship'. Constanz - Talk 09:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I support a strenuous warning from an uninvolved admin. Roobit does have a history of incivility. TheQuandry 03:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Can some admin please take a look at this anon. IP's (sockpuppet of Maleabroad  ?) edit warring, violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR on multiple pages  ? If you look at the histories of the concerned pages, you'll note that he has also been making similarly contentious edits under different IPs Abecedare 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that two other editors have also filed 3RR violation reports for this user: [28] and [29]. Abecedare 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war at Unikkatil

I'm edit-warring at Unikkatil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) with Astrit (talk · contribs) over the mention of Kosovo and Serbia. So far, I haven't been able to get Astrit to either discuss the issue or explain changes using edit summaries. - Regards, Evv 18:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Same thing again (diff.) - Evv 12:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• The problem continues (diff.) - Evv 02:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected. Try to contact the user. If he does not answer, I will block him as vandal. -- ReyBrujo 02:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, ReyBrujo. After it became apparent that Astrit wasn't going to explain his edits in any way (not even edit summaries), I have been trying to contact him in the article's talk page since January 11 and at User talk:Astrit (history) since January 12. So far, Astrit has restricted himself to edit-war without communicating in any way. I will try again. - It appears to be another nationalist editor, trying to present his version of the truth with complete disregard for Wikipedia policies. - Best regards, Evv 03:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vanished without a trace?

Earlier today, I uploaded an image file "BDA_1.jpg" for the Wiki entry Bermuda International Airport. It has now completely vanished without a trace, not even a record of it on "my contributions".

If this action was taken by an Administrator for unknown reasons, won't a message be sent to me at "my talk"?

The file in question was properly tagged, etc., why was it deleted without any explanation?JGHowes 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• See here and then see here. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I gather that this was a "Speedy Deletion", presumably because I tagged it "Copyrighted, used with permission". If I understand this correctly, it appears that no copyrighted images at all will now be accepted even when permission is obtained. If that is indeed so, why not simply state on the upload page that Wiki only allows Public Domain images?JGHowes 21:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Because that would be wrong. Both GFDL and CC-ASA are acceptable, but not PD. --Stephan Schulz 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PD isn't acceptable? You heard him, guys! Time to trash all pre-1923 photographs, images, and paintings! I'll start by nominating Image:Hhbsmeasurec.jpg for deletion! Hbdragon88 23:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to recalibrate your parser. To expound: "Both GFDL and CC-ASA are acceptable, but are not PD".--Stephan Schulz 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

An image can be copyrighted as long as it is free to use with no limitations other than a requirement for attribution or a requirement for derivative works to hold the same license. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but the Upload Image page presents the Licensing choice: "The copyright holder gave me permission to use this work in Wikipedia articles". Why list a choice that is contrary to Wikipedia policy and results in Speedy Deletion without the courtesy of a message to the contributor's mytalk? Oh, and by the way, what the heck is "CC-ASA"? JGHowes 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. My gut feeling is that it remains so that users don't fudge licenses — if that's the license the image is under and they can't find it in the list, they'll just pick another, incorrect one, and while we're usually able to sniff that out, this makes it a little easier. And CC-A-SA is an abbreviation for a specific implementation of the Creative Commons licenses. There are 4 parts of CC, 2 of which are acceptable (A — Attribution, SA — ShareAlike) and 2 of which are not (NC — Non-commercial, ND — No derivatives). A CC license can generally combine any of the 4 in any arrangement, but any with NC or ND cannot be accepted. Hope this helps, —bbatsell ¿? 22:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of options on the drop-down menu that flag the upload for deletion. It would be great if someone would code talkpage notification for upload problems, but I wouldn't expect it anytime soon. Stephan Schulz probably meant the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license, usually abbreviated CC-BY-SA. Jkelly 22:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, right. --Stephan Schulz 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If one attempts to upload an unsupported image, such as .bmp or .tif, immediately there's a popup window warning "Invalid file format". As a suggestion, how about a warning popup along the same lines, if one selects "The copyright holder gave me permission to use this work in Wikipedia articles" it will automatically generate a visible "File Will be Deleted" flag? JGHowes 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You can still upload these files with a restrictive license if you provide a fair-use argument. But a warning would be a good idea.--Stephan Schulz 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

JGHowes, one of the problems with "permission for use on wikipedia" is that images on wikipedia are used by 100s of websites and not just wikipedia. About.com to name a major one. We need to make sure that the images we host would be ok to be re-used. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google Web Accelerator IP to block

72.14.192.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - please block this indefinitely, per WP:GWA. Thanks, --SunStar Net^talk 00:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any edits and allI can figure out from the whois is that the IP is owned by google. What makes you suspect this is an Accelerator address? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility block for review

Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has had a somewhat rocky history on Wikipedia recently.

After repeated warnings for incivility and a block last month for WP:POINT and personal attacks, I've blocked Light current for 24 hours for recurring recent incivility. (He has taken to calling a couple of editors he disagrees with 'Hippo' and 'schizoid', he's also taken to calling Chairboy 'chairy' after he gave Light current a warning.)

Because I have been involved in the imbroglio at the Ref Desk over appropriate standards for behaviour there, I may be in a position where there is a perceived conflict of interest. I therefore ask for independent review of this block.

Before this comes up in another post, I've also issued several warnings to Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for repeated incivility. I'm getting rather tired of parties to the Ref Desk dispute engaging in petty behaviour instead of polite discussion, and I will continue to issue blocks as appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just following form here: Any particular thing he was been blocked for following the warning? Being marginally famaliar with this user's contributions, I have no doubt there are plenty to choose from, I simply mean was it an accumlation of small insults or was there a "clencher." - brenneman 03:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The insults originally appeared on a number of other pages; the talk page warnings (er, the most recent ones) as well as Light current's response are in his talk page's history here: [30]. Note that his response to the warnings was to repeat the insults and namecalling.

He's since removed the note I placed explaining the block from his talk page, and he's been working his way through his talk page removing the names. (He's also added a big, bold 'I CAN ONLY REPLY ON THIS PAGE AS I HAVE BEEN UNFAIRLY BLOCKED BY TEN OF ALL TRADES FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON' message to his talk page header.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

When he says "Hippo," I think it's just his, er, affectionate name for Hipocrite. I don't think he's calling anyone a hippopotamus. Same thing with "Chairy" for Chairboy. Annoying, but not a personal attack. (To clarify, I might be annoyed if someone called me Picaroony, but I wouldn't consider it a personal attack.) However, I have to agree, saying things like this are blatant personal attacks. Picaroon 03:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Following a quick review of his last couple hours of editing, I endorse the block. Bucketsofg 03:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• As Picaroony says, the shortening of names is probably not deliberately offensive, but if the users in question have indicated that they do not like these shortended appelations, then continuing to use them is rude. Accusing Fridayy of being schizophrenic is enough to push Lighty into needing a block to calm down and prevent any further incivility. Proto::► 10:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No opinion on the block (other than perhaps surprise) since it was me he was called "schizophrenic". But, I continue to be concerned about erratic behavior from this editor. This is far from the first time we've seen him push the limits of tolerable behavior and then say he doesn't understand why he was blocked. If he wasn't doing useful article work, the answer would be obvious. Maybe he needs mentoring? Friday (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I do wonder how he pronounces "TOAT". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• • He says to rhyme with "boat", and I say "toe-att". (Also, he says "toMAHtoe" and I say "toMAYtoe", but let's call THAT whole thing off!) Here's my reasoning. Clearly he was not referring to Ten Of All Trades, whom he calls "Ten". (I presume this is a Borg designation, like "Seven of Nine", rather than a step down from being a "Jack of All Trades".) Then, by analogy with "FOAF" ("Friend Of A Friend", "foe-aff", the ubiquitous source of urban legends), "TOAT" must mean "Trend Of A Trend", "toe-att", and he is discussing statistical derivatives, like the beginning of an upswing in the financial markets. Quite technical, and confusing to the uninitiated, but it shouldn't distress the lay readers, who can simply skip over that part. HTH. -- Ben 21:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think people are being seriously overly sensitive here. I don't try to get people blocked for calling me "Rat", for example. StuRat 01:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Has this block been extended ? If so, why ? StuRat 06:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him again, and explained why on his talk page. The block was reviewed and upheld by Guinnog, who explained his rationale also. I'm not seeing at all that blocks are helping tho- so if anyone has a better idea on what to do, go for it. Friday (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As I endorsed the block just after having a (very minor) interaction with him over his deletion of a picture from an article, it may be that further input from an utterly uninvolved admin would be beneficial. The latest focus of his ire seems to be that he feels justified in ridiculing anyone with a lower edit count than he has got. I agree with Friday's point above that these blocks (while I still agree with them) do not seem to be having the right effect. I won't be in the least offended if anyone finds a better way to make this editor a more productive and collegial one. --Guinnog 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. He's calling someone "juvenile" now. Not necessarily a big deal in itself, but it shows a certain lack of intention to stop the problematic behavior. I'm out of ideas here. He's apparently trying to play martyr? I can't think of another reason for it. Friday (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I didnt call someone 'juvenile'. I asked if his opinion was becuase he was a juvenile. careless remarks like this are likely to inflame an already difficult situation between us. I would therfore ask you to correct the above statement forthwith. 8-(--Light current 02:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the user that Light current called a juvenile does self-identify on his user page as a teenager. This is the problem - Light current sails very close to the wind, and seems to think that by having a few grains of truth scattered about what he says, he can get away with things. He needs to learn that such behaviour is not clever, and will probably get him blocked. Equally unfortunately, he got a chip on his shoulder after his first block, and now seems determined to continue his behaviour, while being self-righteous at the same time. I'm out of ideas as well, except maybe just to (within reason) ignore his behaviour and hope he will grow out of it. Carcharoth 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the target of the "freshman" jibe that resulted in his latest block, therefore its probably best if I decline to comment of that specifically. However, Light current is the very definition of a tendencious editor, in my opinion. The tendency being that what he says/thinks is always correct, even when person after person independently informs his that his behaviour is not acceptable within Wikipedia norms. No matter how logical, friendly or sensitively one frames an explanation, Light current will attempt to wikilawyer the discussion to one of a few themes:

1. The person making a request is not old enough, have enough edits, or enough of a (usually RD) regular to have a valid opinion.
2. The person is an admin who is "out to get" him or looking to abuse their powers.
3. The person is not obeying the very letter of Light current's interpretation of some policy (which he will usually quote ad infinitum)

Combine with this a remarkable ability to generate a straw man argument out of pretty much anything, and what happens is that a neutral admin will very soon become an adversary to Light current. He then finds an angle per 1) and starts to see how far he can push the bounds of civility before he gets blocked. When the inevitable block comes he uses it to fuel his complaints per 2) and 3). This cycle perpetuates the perceived injustice he feels, yet what he cannot see is that they are entirely of his own making. I have never blocked him, only having asked him to stop namecalling, yet am already firmly labeled among "rookie/freshmen" admins who abuse their tools. Despite his now numerous blocks for gross and persistent incivility leading to disruption, there appears to be no lessons learned. I honestly don't see how he is going to stop of his own volition. Rockpocket 02:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Now now, Rockpocket, I dont think I said you abused your powers. I think some Admins do, but I havent seen you abuse yours. I thikn generally you are very fair and with a bit more experience you should become a good Admin.

You have not blocked me its true. If people dont like my pet names for them I will stop using them.

However when people accuse me of doing something that is plainly not true, I feel I have to defend myself; otherwise it becomes accepted as a matter of a fact. (Like that untrue comment on namecalling of Fridays on this page).Im sure you can see that.

I am certainly not always correct- but neither are others always correct. It depends on interpretation of very loose policies and guidelines. You may have noticed that it was I who pressed for proper guidelines on the RDs, (and contributed substantially toward them) in order to remove confusion from at least that area of WP>

If Im shown where I have breached the letter of the rules, I will be the first to admit it, apologise profusely, and take any punishment gracefully. Trouble is , nobody can ever point to anything specific, they just go on their interpretations of the rules which are purely matters of individual judgement. Why should the judgement of a few Admins override the opinions of the majority of editors when Admins make up only 0.03% of the total no of users. This percentage figure shows the gross imbalance of forces on the RDs in particular. You can see why ordinary editors like me and Sturat feel under attack all the time? Whatever we say is shouted down my Admins and if we complain, we get blocked!

Any way apologies if I offended you. I was merely pointing out that there are a lot of editors out there who have a hell of a lot more exerience than a lot of Admins (esp recent Admins)

--Light current 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I forgot. The answer is oh so simple: When people stop criticising me, I will respond in like manner and we can all be friends again 8-)--Light current 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the !vote of confidence. It appears Aaron Brenneman is taking a bold approach to guide Light current. Tough love, or so it seems. Lets hope it works. Rockpocket 06:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD vote spamming

Check out Special:Contributions/Surena. She appears to be spamming all the Iranian editors to delete two articles. Someone should probably rollback all the spamming and possibily speedy close the AfDs, as it appears that the changes of a consensus being reached at this point are null. Khoikhoi 06:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would see to it that the AfD is speedy closed, as it is in bad faith. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I speedily closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turco-Persian. The other AFD has another delete argument on it, and WP:IAR would need to be invoked to close it. --Coredesat 06:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The other delete vote was also canvassed, shown by checking his talkpage. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I've closed the other AFD, as well. --Coredesat 07:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD notice was replaced on Turco-Persian, and the AfD page vandalized. JuJube 07:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a stern but polite warning on Surena's talk page. If she continues, a short-term block for POV pushing and vandalism (for messing with the AFDs after the have been closed) may need to be considered. --Coredesat 07:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And now she is accusing me of abusing my admin privileges. --Coredesat 07:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Her misunderstanding of it being your first edit day is rather amusing. It's not as if she's slightly on the wrong side of WP:CANVAS. Its a pretty flagrant attempt at votestacking! WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 08:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone taken a look at her userpage? It appears that she is using it as a soapbox. --Farix (Talk) 13:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Blanked. --InShaneee 14:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And reinstated on her talk page. *sigh* --Farix (Talk) 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed from there, as well. I've also removed the user's attempt to restart AfD voting on the article talk pages. --InShaneee 17:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Surena hasn't given up yet, she's now posting incivil comments (borderline personal attacks) about me on several talk/user talk pages. It might be time to consider a block, possibly medium length since she has been blocked twice for sockpuppet abuse and edit warring. --Coredesat 06:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User has apologized. --Coredesat 07:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Coredesat -- Thanks for the shortcut to this Wikipedia page – please accept my sincere apologies if I have offended you in any form or manner - as I have wronly thought it was you who initiated the removal of the deletion notice, without any reason -- I should have guessed, KhoiKhoi was involved in this mater. Regards Surena 07:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Khoikhoi 08:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rancearse personal attacks

User:Rancearse is making a seris of personal attacks against User:RolandR. See Special:Contributions/Rancearse Abu ali 09:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked as attack account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship? By whom?

There was a fairly graphic image on the ejaculation article :Image:Ejaculation sample.jpg that has been the topic of dicusssion of that article. We had been discussing a variety of things, including linkimaging the image, replacing with two other images, and such. At some time in the past few hours, the image suddently turned black. Looking at the image page itself, it looks as if the image, history and everything exist, but all versions of the image have been removed. There is no talk, and no discussion about this as far as I can tell. This seems to either be vandalism at an admin level or higher, or a decision that has been made outside of the normal protocol of wikipedia (certainly there is no discussion of it on the image page, or in the article it was used.) If there is some secret cabal to censor images, or some admin behind it, then we need to have discussions about this, as people would leave Wikipedia in droves. There may be very good reasons for removal of the image. But the discussion of such things should follow normal wikipedia protocol, or if there is some secret protocol then it needs to be revealed. If someone could look into this and correct it, I would appreciate it. Atom 14:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Very strange. I can view the old versions in all their glory, but trying to revert to them doesn't work. I wouldn't jump into cabal accusations straight away, though. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity (or in this case, computers). yandman 14:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Image shows up in the article on my computer. Just checked it. Jeffpw 14:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no accusations intended. Just looking for the facts. As I said, if there is some good reason why the image should not be there, let's follow the normal process that we do on everything else to do that. Atom 14:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like some unregistered user reverted it to a black image. Yandman reverted it to the actual image, so it seems to be fine, now. What does seem odd to me, though is that the user, Rigel1 reverted it twice today, but that does not show in his contributions. Jeffpw 14:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Image reversions are uploads -> [31]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that wasn't that. Every past reversion was black'd also. Only an admin could do that, not an unregistered user. Well, it does seem a bit odd that it was gone until I complained about it and someone looked into it. I responded to another persons inquiry on the talk page of the article, so this affected others as well. Also, BTW oddly enough it now appear's in two places on the talk page of the article where it is used, but not in two other places where it is used. (non appeared five minutes ago). I suspect that there is a filter to prevent certain images from being used except in specific articles where they are "approved" to be listed. Perhaps to prevent use of the image for vandalism on other articles? Try looking at it on the image page itself (:Image:Ejaculation sample.jpg). Also, I note looking at the image history, it has been altered since a half hour ago. Notably the contributor had two entires. One where he put the image in, and then a few days later when he added the licensing info. Now the one where he put the licensing in is gone. Very unusual. Atom 15:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it back to the original image today also[32] to try and fix it when it was black'd, which is not listed in the edit history. Atom 15:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Now that I complained that my reversion was not there, it suddenly appears, along with a reversion that I didn't make. Also, all of the reversion images work now, instead of being black. This is clearly some kind of manipulation of the image history by an admin. If other admins could look into things to find out what is going on, I would appreciate it. Atom 15:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the image suitable for work? Proto::► 15:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not according to my secretary (who's looking at me in a very strange way now). yandman 15:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this image on MediaWiki:Bad_image_list? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Without being able to look (don't think I will, either, til I get home!) I can't be certain, but it sounds like it is. It's probably one that was used by the template vandal before cascading protection foiled his nefarious schemes. Proto::► 15:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's noit on that bad image list. Jeffpw 16:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Any chance that cache problems in your browser were responsible for you seeing only the blacked out revision, Atom? I've been bitten by that before here, and I would have expected someone to have figured out if an admin had done something bad, there's logs for everything. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas. I forced a refresh of the page first thing. Plus, my reason for questioning it was a message on the talk page of the article where another user had complained of the image being blackened. At least one user responding to my complaint here indicated it was missing for them as well. All images worked fine on the main article and on the talk page, except for the references to that image (shown once in the article and four times on the talk page). On the image page itself, it was blackened, as were every single version in the revision history. I think it highly likely that his was some behind the scenes work, based on the evidence. The modification in the edit history (missing revisions that were there before) and inconsistencies between edit dates and times, as well as the sudden resurfacing of the image just after I complained leads me to that conclusion. Contact me on my talk page for further discussion. At the moment, the image works again. Atom 17:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can look now. I see nothing, no evidence of any maelevolent behind the scenes twiddling at the Wikipedia end. I find it highly likely that there was no malicious behind the scenes twiddling. Seriously, there are worse images that would be nixed before this one. Proto::► 20:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As the person who initially noted it was missing, I can eliminate cache as the issue. I'm running with all caching disabled. When I close the browser, all information (cookies, history, pages, images, etc.) are lost. Each time I restart my browser and return to a page, I am seeing a fresh copy, not a locally stored version. If something isn't looking right and I can refresh the page manually or I can restart the browser and look again. In this case, I did both. -- jsa 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to drag the discussion at Talk:Ejaculation onto more productive lines, such as looking at medical illustration images, and trying to to get a Wikipedian artist to illustrate the subject. Plus internal anatomy diagrams. In case anyone here edits sex-related articles, The McGraw-Hill Human Sexuality Image Bank is a good sources of ideas (though the pics themselves are copyrighted). I can't remember if it is OK to external link to copyrighted pictures elsewhere? Carcharoth 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Rough summary: As long as it's not "copyvio" (copyright violation), meaning the website is authorized (or run) by the copyright owner. Details: WP:C#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. -- Ben 04:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Carcharoth 10:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] repeated obscenites

Micca12145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is to be taking an afd on his article way too seriously. these [33] [34] are obscenely offensive, he seems to need attention asap. thnx  ⇒ bsnowball  09:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

NPA4-ed, although I wouldn't object if an admin upped it to a block straight away. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Those two diffs are way out of line. Blocked for a week to prevent any further pleasantries like 'you Wikipedians all suck dirty cock'. Proto::► 10:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And given this and this, he's getting off light. Proto::► 10:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

He dares to insult an Australian cricketer? Oh, the courage. Endorse block fully. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

When I did a check on the articles I created, I came across this editor. They added middle names to articles of young British actors and changed birthdays without references. I know the edit he did on the page I created was factually wrong and sources for some of the other articles he edited suggests they're wrong too. He probably committed sneaky vandalism. Could someone with more time on their hands run through his contributions and revert any unsourced and factually incorrect edits? I've come as far as Sam Aston. A number of accounts appear in all the same articles as his edits, so I will be checking those for vandalism or sockpuppetry later when I have the time. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3sb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

3sb recently vandalized my userpage and I'll be away in 2 hours and won't be back before at least 3 hours later. Please keep an eye out on my userpage if you're doing anti-vandalism patrol. :)- Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess an indef block is not bad in this case, noticing the user's first edit was a direct attack against you (probably someone you have blocked recently). -- ReyBrujo 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasions

Serafin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) keeps evading their blocks. During the previous block, Serafin used 131.104.218.102 for that purpose. During the more recent block, which already was expanded because of an evasion with the IP 207.245.84.70, Serafin now uses 168.213.1.132. This resulted in the full protection of several articles, which I consider unnecessary and, regarding Serafin's block evasion, supportive rather than deterrent. Supportive because Serafin's versions, which which may well need revision ([35]), even happened to be protected instead of undone. Without a doubt this was not the intention of Robdurbar, who protected the pages. But no doubt semi-protection would be enough, at least until Serafin's block wears of, with the block needing to be reconsidered due to recurrent evasion. Sciurinæ 12:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crculver

CrCulver has just blanked his page saying "Blank, as I'm getting ready to troll full-time and need make no semblance of being an active contributor.. Someone might like to keep an eye on him. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, charming. Hope that was a joke. I'll keep eyes open and report back here if anything strange starts happening. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antichrist and devil accusations

Today User:Dappled Sage accused 3 famous people of being the Antichrist or devil. [36][37][38] PrimeHunter 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• These edits are vandalism. The best course of action is to revert the edits and place a warning (see WP:UTTM to choose the appropriate one) on the user's talk page. When and if the user vandalizes after a level 4 warning has been left on their talk page, you should report them to Administrator intervention against vandalism, whereupon an administrator will block him/her. Srose (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of publications in philosophy

Here's a situation that I think requires a comment from someone with more AfD experience. User:Simoes nominated List of publications in philosophy for deletion, and at least one other user (User:Buridan ) argued for deletion. Simoes decided to withdraw the deletion request, and removed the AfD template from the article page. When Buridan added it back, with a warning to wait for an administrator to close the afd, Simoes removed the template a second time after editing the afd page to say that the AfD had been given a speedy keep. I can undo these edits, but I want to get advice first. CMummert · talk 14:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reverted. Per WP:CSK, a debate is not a speedy keep if people other than the nominator argue for deletion, even if the nominator changes his mind. >Radiant< 14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion of Article

There was an on-going discussion concerning the proposed deletion of the MWHS Mami Wata Healers Society Page of which none of the admins presented convincing evidence or argument that the article was in violation of wiki policy or in need of improvement. Although there was a "consensus" by some editors who are friends of the admin, of having the page deleted, we believe this effort was conspiratorially spearheaded by this admin in retaliation for us contributing heavily to an article he has written. When we went to post more discussion, the article was removed completely without our being officially informed of the final discussion or outcome. We are requesting an admin to intervene and immediately undelete the article so that a fair settlement can be agreed. Anagossii--MWHS 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc., which was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc.? If you disagree with an article's deletion, Deletion review is the proper venue. Aecis^Bravado 14:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The office of Bridgestone is editing Firestone page

See these edits: [39][40][41] Reverted by WP:VP2: [42] [43][44][45][46]

User:199.48.25.10 Whois: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=199.48.25.10

User:199.48.24.11 Whois: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=199.48.24.11

OrgName:    Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. 
OrgID:      BRIDGE-12
Address:    One Bridgestone Park
City:       Nashville
StateProv:  TN
PostalCode: 37214
Country:    US

NetRange:   199.48.16.0 - 199.48.31.255 
CIDR:       199.48.16.0/20 
NetName:    NETBLK-BFS
NetHandle:  NET-199-48-16-0-1
Parent:     NET-199-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Assignment
NameServer: DNS-5.BS-FS.COM
NameServer: DNS-3.BS-FS.COM
NameServer: DNS-6.BS-FS.COM
NameServer: DNS-4.BS-FS.COM
Comment:    
RegDate:    1993-11-12
Updated:    2002-07-31

RTechHandle: DB-ORG-ARIN
RTechName:   Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. 
RTechPhone:  +1-615-237-6008
RTechEmail:  *********@bfusa.com 

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-01-10 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

What can be done?

I am in the middle of a checkuser with a possible Bridgestone employee who resides in the hometown of the Australian headquarters. This user has been deleting the same exact content as the Bridgestone office in Akron, Ohio was deleting. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01

What is the wikipolicy on this? What can be done? Travb (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

see WP:COI --BozMo talk 12:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, added it to noticeboard: [47] Best wishes, Travb (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

From your (sub)talk-page:

Find out who User:Mobile 01 really is, and get him booted indefinetly for blatantly abusing wikipedia. Find out if the wikieditor behind User:Mobile 01 is or ever has been an employee of Bridgestone/Firestone (personal information will be collected off wikipedia, and presented to admin / User:Jimbo Wales via e-mail).

How do you intend to get this "personal information"? What sort of personal information are you refering to? --Larry laptop 14:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We have Bridgestone employees editing Firestone. See: User:Travb/m#Bridgestone_employees_start_deleting_sections_of_Firestone_Tire_and_Rubber_Company_16_November_2006_to_presentTravb (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How have you found out that LucaZ is a sock? Are we expected to just take your word? I asked you for evidence the last time you raised this and you were unable / unwilling to provide it. Please provide evidence. Proto::► 14:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did you answer my question in detail? Who are you, and why do you keep defending Mobile 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) ? I'm not sure why asking you questions about your stated purpose is "defending" Mobile1 - I want to know about something YOU wrote on YOUR subpage? So what's the answer? how are you collecting this information and what information do you plan to collect? As for who am I - I'm Larry laptop - what more do you need to know. --Larry laptop 14:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence: User:Travb/m#Bridgestone_employees_start_deleting_the_page_16_November_2006_to_present

5 minutes after the Bridgestone employee deletes the page, User:LucaZ makes his first edit. Lets wait for the checkuser. All we know for 100% sure is that bridgestone employees have been editing this page.

Can we all agree that it is important for the wikipedia communitee to know that a corporate office of Bridgestone is actively editing it's wikipedia article? Travb (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused - above you say most definetly a sock from the Bridgestone Ohio office, now it seems you say based on no evidence. So if you have no evidence but he's most definetly a sock.. do you not think you should be a bit more careful about throwing the term "sock" about? --Larry laptop 14:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like his evidence is the editing pattern, which we do accept here as evidence of sockpuppetry. When he says "no evidence," he seems to be referring to the incomplete checkuser request. Let's not get hung up on semantics; if Travb is right, then we have a major (not to mention newsworthy) conflict of interest here, and that is the problem that needs to be addressed. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. The pattern suggests not simply one-off edits by an individual employee, but a coordinated effort. Raymond Arritt 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we have some more input from some more admins? Maybe the wikipedia community can find out more information. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite a rule that prohibits editing by Firestone employees? Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh... sure. #1 of WP:COI. —bbatsell ¿? 03:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that anyone is being paid to edit Wikipedia here. Morton Devonshire^Yo 15:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that rule suggests not editing articles where a possible COI exists, but does not prohibit it. While I agree that the deletions these editors or single editor made were aggressive in there ANTI-ANTI FIRESTONE nature, they do not break any rules. While I may have edited similar sections of the page, you will see from edit history that I did not just delete sections but tried to bring them to what I believe are a NPOV section. I am sure that lots of corporate articles are started by the employees of those companies and then edited by others later on. I do not see anything wrong with an employee editing an article about it's company if those edits help to improve the article. As explained on my talk page, I have a history with tyre manufacture dating back 36 years and my efforts on this page have been to improve the article and return it to NPOV. Currently been forced into an edit war protection over the article by Travb who is the initiator of this discussion here. regardless of what these two or one editors and possible sock LucaZ edited on the article, it has nothing to do with me and is being used as support for this users persecution of me. See Travb/m and the sock puppet accusation he has placed on my name page User:Mobile 01. Thanks for allowing me to have a say in this and I wish you good and happy 2007 from The Land Down-Under. Mobile 01^Talk 12:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Big thing, Cisco employers are in iPhone lobbing to move the article to another place and leaving Cisco product there :-P -- ReyBrujo 02:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdish related cfds

• WP:CFD/Log/#Category:Kurdish_inhabited_regions
• WP:CFD/Log/#Category:Jews_and_Judaism_in_Kurdistan
• WP:CFD/Log/#Category:Religion_in_Kurdistan

I think there is a serious amount of civility/npa issues on all three of those deletion discussions. Some of the rationales have nothing to do with our deletion policy and some even conflict it. --Cat out 18:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus opinion amongst the voters over at CfD seems to be diametrically opposed to yuor point of view; I'd say that there really isn't anything here for an administrator to correct. --Scimitar 20:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  The "consensus" (consensus will be determied at the end of CfD) of the CfD is beyond the scope of this complaint, that is soemthing completely different. All CfD discussions are expected to be preformed in a civil tone not violating WP:NPA and other similar complimentary policies. My complaint is a lack of that. --Cat out 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  I said "seems to be" because consensus was not yet determined, although, personally, I doubt the outcome is in much doubt. As for the lack of civility, I really don't see that an administrator can do much more about it than any other editor can.--Scimitar 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  I've taken another look and made some comments; some of those editors disagreeing with you are being less than civil, but, that said, I really don't see anything here to get worked up about.--Scimitar 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  It would be fine for me if they were given a strong warning. I did warn one of them twice but it had no effect on behaviour. Incivility should be discouraged on every opportunity. --Cat out 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  So it should. [48] [49]] Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Do you have a point? I see nothing problematic there. Why is it that whenever I complain here people just attack me left right. --Cat out 01:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Some people might think "Why must you be so dense" was commenting on the contributor rather than the content. Whether you see anything problematic or not, I'm fairly sure that there's a policy page somewhere that says not to do that. I'm not here to give free advice, but if I were going to come shopping for warnings, I'd want to make very sure I had followed the relevant policy down to the last jot. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • These [50], [51] are probably the worst violations of civility in the discussion. Unfortunate, but hardly anything to get worked up about, in my opinion, anyways. --Scimitar 15:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spammer

There's a devoted spammer who has been using Wikipedia as a soapbox at least since the year 2005. He always registers a disposable account and uses it to post horrible, all-caps, poorly formatted preaching/crackpottery page.

So far, I have discovered and blocked the following accounts (by searching for strings such as "COME, LORD JESUS", "MY DEAR AMERICAN PEOPLE", or "ROBIN DONALD"):

• ROBINDONALD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD44@YAHOO.COM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• KING DAVID JESSE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• NODES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• SUPERSONIC NODES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• EDGES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• SUPERSONIC EDGES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

and these addresses:

• 60.48.171.178 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 219.94.77.58 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 218.208.4.194 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 219.93.174.102 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) - already blocked, open proxy
• 202.188.133.114 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

and deleted the user and/or user talk pages created by him; see their deleted history. What other action should be taken? Checkuser? - Mike Rosoft 17:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if any of them are current a checkuser might be able to turn up sleeper accounts.--Isotope23 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely checkuser material. -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Send the IPs to WP:OP; Checkuser will handle the accounts. Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism from IP 159.250.29.81

Could someone please block User:159.250.29.81 - this address has been blocked three times already; and as the last block just expired the vandal is back. --- Hillel 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I gave him one warning; I don't like blocking immediately, even with a persistent vandal. If he does something similar again, I will block him. --Scimitar 17:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert warring over {{lowercase}}

There's a problem over at Talk:IPhone, regarding the appropriateness of {{lowercase}} on talk pages. There is nothing in that template's documentation or anywhere else that prohibits its use on talk pages (it is actually transcluded on some user pages), but all attempts to introduce the template (which is also used on Talk:eBay, among other talk pages) get reverted as "pointless": [52] and [53]. This might require some form of intervention in order to sort out how this template should be used. --Coredesat 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone also removed it from eBay as well. Hbdragon88 23:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I was the one who edited the {{lowercase}} in Talk:eBay, but all I did was fix it not to say Talk:Talk:eBay. Once I fixed it, the title just automagically corrected itself to Talk:eBay NipokNek 18:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Basically, as I explained to 1ne, it is common sense. Just check some of the articles using the template: 50 talk pages out of 2700. And you can see that most of those are the ones with many, many fanboys (Apple, digg, etc). I don't see people trying to add the template to Talk:E (mathematical constant), in example. I guess this should be sorted at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, not here. -- ReyBrujo 23:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I can see both sides of this. Personally, I think anybody who revert wars over this is acting a bit infantile -- what ever happened to discussion? Why is this a big deal, either way? And past all that, I'm not really sure if this passes my threshold for an "incident;" might be better handled somewhere else. Luna Santin 23:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ack. This just might be WP:LAME material. Patstuart^talk|edits 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. —xyzzy_n 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Harrison

I have bumped into this user on some 9/11 articles today. I found them adding a cartoon to a 9/11 conspiracy template, arguing that it is directly relevant to the 9/11 conspiracy theory page since the cartoon was joking on 9/11. [54] They then went and removed the same template from the September 11th attacks page, which one would think is more relevant then a cartoon episode. [55] I do not wish to get into an edit war, especially since they are an admin, but this editing pattern makes little sense. How can a cartoon be more relevant to 9/11 conspiracy then the 9/11 page itself. I am asking an admin to please ask Tom to cease this disruptive editing. The additions to the template devalue it, as much as adding South Park hitler episodes to WW2 template. In the same hand the removal of the template from the 9/11 article makes little sense, as it contains the 9/11 conspiracy theories and is the main article all the others are based around. --NuclearZer0 14:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• See Template talk:911ct Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I see an anon, myself and Bov, opposing you Fiddle and Morton. Doesn't seem to be a concensus to include. Please stop reverting and attempt to reach a concensus. It is very much in direct conflict with your role as an admin to not seek concensus for additions. --NuclearZer0 14:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• The overall issue is a content dispute which covers Template:911ct whose design criteria are illustrated on its talk page. As the creator of this template after a consensus elsewhere I am simply concerned that major changes to it (ie structural changes) are made after a consensus is built, and that it is deployed in accordance with a consensus on its purpose. I think raising it here under an editor's name is somewhat premature when the template's own talk page is being used to build the various consensus needed. However, the fact that it is raised here invites many more editors to visit the talk page and to participate, should they desire, in consensus building. Fiddle Faddle 14:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure. Who wouldn't want to spend time working with NuclearUmpf to build a consensus about our coverage of conspiracy theories. If you'll excuse me now, I have a dentist appointment and I hope he can see me early. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm really not seeing anything disruptive here, NuclearZer0. 9/11 conspiracy theories don't get a ton of credibility in most circles; therefore, that template's inclusion on the 9/11 page is somewhat problematic. What coverage they do get is in less reputable venues, and I really don't see what the problem is in adding pop culture references to the template. That said, this seems to be a debate better suited to the relevant talk pg.s than here, since nobody seems to be violating policy.--Scimitar 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are we discussing content disputes here? — Nearly Headless Nick 16:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Tom is a known face around the 9/11 articles. This is not a noticeboard job. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campeonato Brasileiro Série A Revert War

I don't know what to do and I ask for help. I provided sourced information that justify my editions (Flamengo is 5th times champion) but User:21JuL74 seems to ignore it ridicularizing the Wikipedia:Verifiability ruling their own sources and verifiability criteria. I'm currently engaged with him in revert war, already made my statement at Talk page and just received personal attacks. I ask for for admin intervention to help resolve this. --Ragnarok Addict 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:169.139.119.16 Vandalism

User:169.139.119.16 is currently vandalizing the List of Internet slang phrases.

• Erichwtl 19:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked. --Scimitar 19:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:63.96.196.195 is back from 48 hour block

Grr, 3 articles vandalised in 11 minutes. [56] — MrDolomite | Talk 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked, for 48 hours. --Scimitar 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] indefblocked user PN.P. p (talk · contribs) vandalizing his own talk page

This indefinitely blocked sock of Art Dominique (talk · contribs) is vandalising his own talk page with his ongoing fraudulent claims. [57] How can an indef blocked user edit pages? Can someone protect the talk page? TheQuandry 03:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have protected the talk page. Quandry, a blocked user normally can edit his/her talk page, so he can request unblock, explain his behavior, etc. He can even participate in editing of the articles by providing references and suggestion to whoever reads his talk. If this feature is abused the talk page is to be protected Alex Bakharev 04:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining Alex. That makes sense. TheQuandry 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off-wiki attack

I am undecided what to do about this: [58]. I suspect that at the very least a strong warning is in order. Whether this level of bigotry is genuinely representative of what User:TruthCrusader believes ,I would not like to speculate. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page. —Mets501 (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we know for certain that "TruthCrusader" in that forum is the same person as User:TruthCrusader on WP? And, can anyone provide a working link to the debate he cites? Newyorkbrad 21:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination). Was what he was referring too. It did get a couple poor contributions, that did not affect the close, but I don't know if they were new users, sock puppets of a banned user, or what. I closed the AFD, and it is currently for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 17#rec.sport.pro-wrestling where I see troubling behaviour by two new users that I (as the closing admin of the AFD under review) should not be the one to sort out. GRBerry 21:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block review (image misuse)

After this exchange followed by this, I've blocked Deucalionite (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for "persistent image copright offenses, repeat upload of unsourced images, repeated inclusion of alleged fair use images in userspace". The user has a tradition of bad image uploads and other copyright/plagiarism issues. As I have a history of rather strained relations with this user, he apparently has not been in the mood for entering into a rational discussion with me. Thus, block open to review here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:1B6

User:1B6 has posted on my talk page ([59]) (3 days ago, but since the last time I checked Wikipedia) asking to be blocked. That user then vandalised their own userpage ([60]) and talkpage ([61]), and reverted the vandalism on their own userpage with a note implying that the account has been compromised ([62]). I'm reporting the issue here now, but as the user has not edited for almost 2 days this probably isn't urgent. --ais523 10:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would love to help this user re-establish conection with his account and verify and when his password or email was changed. But since my RFA failled miserably and was closed within just a few hours, I can only watch, wait and see what another administrator will do. I'm not not bitter though! (sarcastically) --CyclePat 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with repeated recreation and removal of speedy deletion tags on article Medi-Kill

Help! I noticed the re-creation of a deleted article (deleted as speedy following unanimous AfD today) by user:KiddyFlidders and tagged it for speedy deletion. A little later, the speedy tag was removed by user:172.142.133.127. The speedy tag was re-added by user:I Love Baldurs Gate, but subsequently removed once again by 172.142.133.127. He also added a section stating the film as fictional. I've considered simply re-adding the tag once again, but it will probably be removed, it's been subject to one AfD discussion already, so I'm not sure an AfD would do much especially in light of the user's apparent resistance to allowing wikipedia process to work. Any help or guidance would be appreciated, as this is my first time requesting/nominating anything for deletion. Wintermut3

I'll be dealing with Medi-Kill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and protecting it from recreation. Sandstein 23:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would have been best to let the AFD run its course, rather than jumping to speedy-deleting the article. But, you know, I don't feel so strongly about it that I'm going to go to WP:DRV or anything. FreplySpang 01:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] URGENT:User:WORLDJKD

User:WorldJKD is making legal threats on the talk page of the Jeet Kune Do article, and removing comments. User:Bruceleeman and User:Jeetman may be sockpuppets. He left the e-mail address info@leejkd.com, and asked that the editor User:FrankWilliams contact him. He left the following on his talk page:

MR. WILLIAMS. YOU CANNOT IGNORE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. WE WANT TO SPEAK WITH YOU. YOU DELEATED YOUR WIKIPEDIA EMAIL SO WE CAN NO LONGER ATTEMPT CONTACT OFFLINE LIKE MR. PATRICK REQUESTED OF YOU. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT INFO@LEEJKD.COM OR OUR ATTORNEYS AT THE PATTON LAW OFFICE JON@JONPATTON.COM. --WORLDJKD 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the talk page for the Jeet Kune Do article back to its original form. User:Brad Patrick wrote that the Wikimedia Foundation has been contacted about the legal threats, but User:WorldJKD doesn't seem to be stopping their vandalism and repeated legal demands the talk page. There has also been quite an edit war on the article itself, if you look at the history. I also posted this on the complex vandalism notice board as well. Please intervene. Asarelah 23:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(re-factored comments to make them readable)I have blocked this user for 24 hours. Editing wikipedia is not a right and there is no acceptable reason to disrupt the project. I'll take a look at the other accounts too. I hard-blocked the user with autoblock enabled, so it should catch any other accounts as well. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonation by User:Hamsacharya duh

Hamsacharya duh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is impersonating Hamsacharya dan (talk · contribs). See their respective user pages. Also, the impersonator is likely the latest reincarnation of Terminator III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who is probably a sock of NoToFrauds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). See the as yet unprocessed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NoToFrauds for the unpleasant details. A Ramachandran 03:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:218.188.3.113

Many last warnings of obvious vandalism.+mwtoews 02:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What a splendid history. --CyclePat 03:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wuggsy (talk · contribs)

The user has been using article talk pages as a soapbox to express his opinons. In the process of doing so he has made personal attacks, see the following diff:

Is Wikipedia biased, giving special favor to Atheists? I guess so, since any comment made about Landover Baptist Church which isn't flattering is deleted.

Communists are Atheists, they both use the same tactics. They squelch all opposing viewpoints, while simultaneously spewing lies and deceitfulness (aka Propaganda) about their political opponents. The Landover Baptist Church in conjunction with the efforts of Wikipedia is a perfect example. All reviews are positive, all disgussions are positive, and all negative feedback is deleted. You biased lunatics have no credibility.

You are no better then Landover Baptist Church itself. If anyone attempts to enter their website and post that Landover Baptist Church exists simply to mock Christians, and is run by a lying bastard of an Atheist, then your post is immediately deleted. So I come to Wikipedia, and guess what, another lying bastard of an Atheist deletes my post here. You manipulative lying bastards. [63]

Thank you.--Jersey Devil 03:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest an indef block; obvious attack account. Yuser31415 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried giving him a warning on his talk page. I've also removed the personal attacks from his post on the above talk page. I'll block if he does it again. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Maile Flanagan's page has been vandalized.

It's been fixed. Feel free to revert vandalism yourself! Cheers! Yuser31415 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Proraceskier1232

has made repeated edits of an abusive nature to User Talk:Lpgeffen. One of those comments points to an edit to Atlantic City International Airport at 21:30, 18 January 2007 by 68.192.27.4 that is vandalism. See also edit to Continental Airlines by this user at 22:22, 18 January 2007, now reverted.

Yes, But I noticed that his ID was not blocked indefinitely as abuse, and pure-vandalism. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Football article again

VNistelrooy9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Is committing repeated and clear acts of POV blanking/vandalism against Football (see article history). He or she has received a final warning from an admin and has ignored it. This is all too common in relation to the Football article. I have moved this from WP:AIV at an admin's request. Thanks, Grant65 | Talk 05:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fooqiman

• User:Fooqiman has removed the AfD tag from article Fooqiman and created mutliple redirect pages to avoid deletion. I've left a message on his userpage. MegX 07:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  I've re-userfied it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why? It's a vanity bio and should be sent straight to the bit bucket. --Calton | Talk 07:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:AnonMoos

User:AnonMoos has removed an AfD header of the closed Wipipedia AfD discussion multiply times over the past month. The header was originaly added as a result of public messeges about the discussion in Wipipedia, which had been only been targeted to certain users. He had been told many times that it isn't an an accusation against him or the participants of the discussion, but he kept removing it ignoring the messeges and continuing with his accusations of my bad-faith.

Removal of AfD header: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70].

Removal of good-faith talk page messeges: [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77].

Removal of 3RR warning: [78], [79].

Personal attacks: [80], [81]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all... Shame on you edit waring to keep warnings on his talk page. That's inappropriate. And has escalated the dispute further, leading into the personal attacks. When someone simply removes a warning, simply take note as evidence that the person has read the warning.

Now, I'm not trying to defend his actions... making personal attacks, messing with archived AFDs, and edit waring are all unacceptable behaviors. AnonMoos needs to be severely reprimanded. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked sock of MascotGuy; review

I've indef blocked Mr. Worldster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (AIV request) as a likely sock puppet of MascotGuy. I'm not familiar with this vandal, so this is an opportunity for more knowledgeable admins to review (and if necessary revert) this action. Sandstein 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly him. If you want to really confirm, go ask Tregoweth—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jinglebellsjingle

This guys is a sockpuppet of someone whose name I can't remember, but I remember he always goes around and nominates wrestling articles for deletion. As per how we've been instructed, could someone delete those afds (yes, I said that correctly), and ban him? Patstuart^talk|edits 07:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

JB196. Block away.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright infringement in Periyar

I had raised this issue earlier [82] but nothing came of it so I shall repeat:

I noticed that the article Periyar is protected. I am concerned that large sections of the text in the article are copy-pasted from this article on countercurrents.org, which is a copyright violation. Specially the sections Periyar#A_Freedom_Fighter_as_a_Congress_Party_Leader,Periyar#A Committed Rationalist and Rebel, Periyar#Leader of Justice Party: 1939-1944 and all the sections below up to the Periyar#Criticism. Since copyvio is a very serious thing and supercedes protection, I ask that the text be removed by an admin. Thanks. Rumpelstiltskin223 08:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Imjohn

This user has uploaded several automotive promotional photos and passed them off as GFDL. Prior to that, he took images from eBay Motors ad passed them off as his own. The last two he uploaded were done after I had notified him of the copryvio on his other images. He has also uploded two Oldsmobile logos as GFDL. I believe them to be ripped off, but there is no evidence to prove it outside of his general lack of respect for copyright. --Sable232 02:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I diagnose lack of knowledge of image licensing. I have explained things to him. If he continues to upload images without proper license tags after this explanation, then we will have to block him. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support a ban of 209.188.200.126

The user is an IP address registered to an educational facility, where, apparently, the students are vandalizing entries.

Entries for "Cyanide," Atomic Weapons, a local school, and others have been modified. (In the case of "Cyanide," the description "extremely toxic" was changed to "extremely tasty." In another, "michael" (all lower-case) was listed as the school principal, and "hi there" was added to one of the links area of the bomb entry.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MZmuda (talk • contribs) 03:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I've seen what people at my school do and i'd say any subnet belonging to an educational facility should be auto blocked. If anyone seriously wants to edit Wiki pages, they can make an account and login. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gab.popp (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] user:82.22.187.20

This user has left aggressive edit comments on various pages connected with the BBC television license. The account history shows that this user only uses the account to add an external link to a forum website. Special:Contributions/82.22.187.20 This morning there have been several personal attacks to User:Nick Cooper's user page. Can an admin help with the appropriate block process please?. Thanks. - X201 10:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for POV-pushing spam and incivility. A stronger warning than the one already there would have been nice, but the user's been doing this for month with no useful edits and I doubt we're missing anything while he's gone. If he returns I'll block for a longer period to reflect the length of time he's been doing this. My blocking him without a stronger warning first was arguably an oversight, but not one I will be 'correcting'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll endorse this one. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. - X201 11:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review of Admin Actions

I'm in a bit of a rush, I was curious if someone could review my actions here. Thanks, Yanksox 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're fine, however there are kinder ways to reply to such things. I just replied to the user on that talk page re: copyright issue. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 13:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent IP vandal bordering on harassment

72.145.94.136 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) has targeted User talk:Sherurcij and (to a lesser degree) User talk:Kralizec! for specious {{cv}}, {{3RR}}, and {{tpv2}} warnings. Examples include [83], [84], [85], [86], and [87]. The anonymous vandal in question appears to be using multiple IP addresses:

• 68.211.142.180 (talk · contribs) - [88]
• 68.211.170.88 (talk · contribs) - [89]
• 68.219.3.210 (talk · contribs) - [90], [91]
• 208.61.15.64 (talk · contribs) - [92]
• 74.224.173.102 (talk · contribs) - [93]

I have stepped User talk:72.145.94.136 up through {{tpv}} warnings #2, #3, and #4 since this IP is the one most commonly used to vandalize. As that IP's most recent vandalism [94] was just four hours after receiving a {{tpv4}} warning [95], can someone give this address a nice, long block? To date, this IP vandal has given 23 warnings to User:Sherurcij (using multiple IP addresses), which to me makes this issue sound more like a case of WP:HARASS. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• As much as I don't like doing this for talk pages, but with the permission of User:Sherurcij we might consider semi-protecting his/her talk and user page. This will stop the immediate problem. Hopefully within a short period, our IP-harasser will get bored and we can unprotect it. Bucketsofg 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm good for that, I've had to do that before with anon AOLholes harassing a user. Syrthiss 15:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked 72.145.94.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for twenty-four hours (I think a "nice long block" would be inappropriate for the first one, though I'm sure it will be increased i9n the future, judging by the contributions history so far).

[edit] User:Jrapidfire

This user has been doing vandalism, adding original research, vandalizing article talk pages (see Talk:Broly: Second Coming's history for an example of how far he would go) and personal attacks in a regular basis for about half a month, a long list of users have warned him about this conduct (User:SUIT, User:DesireCampbell, User:Heat P and myself among others) I have disscused this with other users and we all have aggreed he needs to get banned, thanks for your time --Dark Dragon Flame 22:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe his IP adress Special:contributions/214.13.248.180 should also be banned he does use it more than his account --Dark Dragon Flame 23:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How you doing today? I am in total agreeance with my fellow Dragon Ball editor. This Jrapidfire has not only personally attack people trying to make him understand and warn him about his way but he has went on many articles involving the Dragon Ball character Broly and has put much Original Research into Broly's article and has go to sites like www.Answers.com, a Site that gets it references to there article for this site, and has copied and paste the old info answer.com has from the article before changes were made with official facts back onto the article Broly: Second Coming. His apparent obsession with Broly is clouding his or her judgment and is disregard for the truth told to him or her has lead him to attack editors personally as well as vandalize many talk page subject to help him or her understand. Yes as my fellow user Dark Dragon Flame as suggested this user needs to be banned. Thank you. Heat P 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above, but banning seems a bit much. Maybe an indefinate block or some other block so he/she can see the errors of his/her ways, or something like that.--SUIT⁴² 06:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding my two cents as well: Jrapidfire completely ignores attempts to curb his vandalism. He repeatedly deletes notes on the Talk Page requesting "whoever" is adding OR, to stop. He also repeatedly blanks his own Talk page of warnings. --DesireCampbell 17:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mcjewzy

Namely, playing around with my userpage (moved it around User:Samuel Curtis and Sigh...why am i doing this?) just because (I am) really mean to (him) personally and rude and id like to do something petty to get back at him (See Special:Contributions/Mcjewzy). By personally he referred to my removal of his vanity additions of T-Unit into random pages. I think this user is previously known as User:24.151.76.114, User:24.151.106.196, User:24.151.81.152 and has vandalled on my userpage once in December for the same reason-- removal of T-Unit vandalism.

I don't know what do you think about this. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 03:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are asking here. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for a day, as the edit summaries show malice. If this account repeats the behaviour once the block expires, a permanent block may be warranted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be good choice to give him one chance. If he promise not to play with user pages. Daniel5127 <Talk> 05:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the username fails under the WP:UN criteria (sounds suspiciously like "Mc - Jews - y") and so I would indef immediately. Yuser31415 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking suspiciously like something isn't enough for me to block. If the account resumes bad behaviour (and, say, vandalised Jewish or Nazi articles), I'd indef block immediately, but it's not such a clearcut username issue in my opinion. Someone else might disagree with me, though. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question

What's the procedure when a user upset about an AFD I submitted (even though it got kept) emails me a link to his blog, where he describes me (and another admin) as, amongst other things, 'members of the Downs Syndrome brigade'? As it's off Wiki, should I just ignore it? If I respond on the blog, am I liable here for what I am sorely tempted to write? Proto::► 15:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If you were on IRC, I would have asked you to use the /ignore tool. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 15:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not on IRC. Proto::► 15:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. I'd just ignore such puerile behavior. -- Merope 15:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who gives any credence to his offensive and childish rant is surely someone whose opinion you wouldn't care about anyway. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] odd behaviour

Not sure what this falls under but some very shady behaviour here. The first move is to copy an admin user page wholesale (from here) including conversations and then altering them to suggest the conversations and barnstars are all long-standing. His current userpage is em.. mine. --Larry laptop 15:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations too. H.meligy@ieee.org (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is evidently the same person. Chick Bowen 16:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Silly question: this user "voted" in an open RFA. There is at least one other current, open RFA - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SunStar Net - that has SPA participation. WP:RFCU says that sock puppetry that does not affect the outcome (as almost certainly neither of these will) should be listed on WP:ANI. Is there any way that a checkuser could be run to find out if these individuals are sockpuppets, either of someone involved in the RFA, or of a banned user? --BigDT 16:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

At least one of the 'crats is a checkuser, so you could note your suspicions at WP:BN as well. Thatcher131 17:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Make a checkuser request, IP(s) to account(s) comparison in the goal of uncovering socks is what it's for. Teke ^(talk) 17:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone might want to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong_3 - supports 82 onwards seems to be the same editor registering over and over. From the statements, he clearly wants to be caught. --Larry laptop 17:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request block review of User:BlasgRefeifeg

In my one week as an admin, I have been extremely conservative on the block button. This user was spamming talk pages with the URL of a pornographic/NSFW website. He had been warned after the first instance and was now spamming user talk pages repeatedly, with the misleading statement, "someone has made a website about you" [96] for an example. The user has now added {{unblock}} to his talk page and as this is my first real unilateral block decision (the other three came from AIV, or, in one case, was an obvious sock of a banned user), I wanted to request a review. Thanks. --BigDT 17:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed, good call. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

His first two edits would have sufficed for an indefblock. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, HighInBC and Jpgordon --BigDT 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Raspor

For several weeks now a highly aggressive and partisan new contributor, Raspor, has been causing serious disruption at Intelligent design, Talk:Intelligent design, Talk:Evolution, and Talk:Discovery Institute as well as various user talk pages. This prompted me to file a user conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor, where there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate against his behavior. He has dismissed the community's input and is now attempting to expand his disruption with petty trolling: [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] He's exhausted the community's patience, as recent comments on my talk page and the RFC talk page indicate.

Considering the disruption he's caused over the last 72 hours and his unwillingness to moderate his behavior despite many past warnings and kindlier efforts, something needs to be done to get his attention. FeloniousMonk 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I support either a community ban in general (given his increasing incivility) or a topic ban on articles related to creationism and evolution in the broad sense. A week or so ago I favoured the latter, but he has now moved to trolling user talk pages. I am now in favour of a community ban. Guettarda 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. This guy has done very little but troll in the time he's been here. I recommend a lengthy block - maybe 72 hours, or even a week - and for it to be made absolutely clear to him that what he is doing is just not on. Mind you, if anyone wants to block indef, I won't be calling for your desysopping. I can just about envisage this fellow turning into a decent editor, but it's a stretch. Block now and the next time he trolls kick him out for good. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support a block. However, given that the user has only one previous block- a standard 3RR block, an indefinite block at this point seems uncalled for. I would recommend some block time between 24 to 96 hours. JoshuaZ 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Four days seems more than a bit light for the amount of disruption he's caused and the fact he simply shugged off his last block. FeloniousMonk 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If the user goes back to the same things after the block we can always immediately respond with another block. However, if someone blocks for a week I'm not going to object. JoshuaZ 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If we want to do this incrementally, then I would propose a couple weeks of a topic ban - tell him to stay away from articles related to evo-creo (and stop trolling user talk pages). Guettarda 22:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the matter here is exhausting community patience, which isn't something that builds from shorter to longer blocks, is it? There is, of course, a separate issue of his personal attacks and incivility, which probably needs a lot more attention than it has been given. Guettarda 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for one week to start, but if someone wants to block permanently I wouldn't object. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also wouldn't object to an indefblock. My favorite: "no one ever told me not to call him fellatio. i really dont remember that." No? Oh okay, that's better then. —bbatsell ¿? 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a community ban. He seems to be here only to disrupt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Send in the Balrog! Apart from that, I would support a community ban per a large amount of disruption and incivilty. Yuser31415 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Am I allowed to say he can fuck off yet? No? Kindly fuck off? No? Oh well. I'm off to make a new award, the Banstar, for banning those who are obviously not here to help. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, in this case you're allowed to say that. God knows I've been saying it under my breath a lot lately. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that the situation got so out of control that FeloniousMonk set up a whole separate page on Talk:Intelligent design for Raspor's and another editor's various rants and rapid-fire diatribes. I support FM's way of dealing with the situation, which had gotten well beyond reason. That page alone (Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections) is already at 137kB of content (a couple kB of which is due to my own attempts at response/explanation/conciliation, along with similar conciliatory attempts by several other users). Raspor has settled down just a bit of late on Talk:Intelligent design, and [s]he's mostly respected the request to post comments on the page that was set up to accommodate the various shotgun-style objections and accusations (though I see he's moved his activities to some other pages in the meantime). I'm in favor of a temporary block, perhaps a week, if only to give it a rest for awhile, take a forced wiki-break, and hopefully have Raspor come back (if [s]he wishes) with more of an orientation towards interactive discussion and contribution rather than just ranting. ... Kenosis 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC) I now see Jayjig appears to already have blocked Raspor for a week. Seems to me if [s]he's to be allowed to return after whatever the decision is among the admins, it should be with the caveat that a repetition of the pattern will result in a permanent block--just my opinion. ... Kenosis 04:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support this course of action - if this editor returns and makes one more personal attack, I support indef. The "fellatio" remark alone is beyond the pale, and one look at the talk page of his Rfc shows mutiple personal attacks and a total lack of interest in being even remotely civil. His goal seems disruption and trolling, with one or two productive edits buried amongst thousands of counter-productive hostile rants. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

After a quick skim of contributions - I've got to wonder why we spent so many manhours on such hopeless cases - editing wikipedia is an entitlement, it's not a right, yet I've seen less handwringing about sending people to prison (mind you that might say more about the UK Justice system..) --Charlesknight 11:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I believe that some of the comments in this section are incorrect and/or misleading. I question the claim that "there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate"; it seems that most if not all of the people objecting to him are on one side of the debate (and not his side, of course!). I'm not sure what the claim that "he simply shugged (sic) off his last block" means; he was new, didn't know about the three-reverts rule, but now does and hasn't reoffended on that. And although I agree he has been aggressive and abusive, it was largely in response to others insulting him or being abusive to him. Philip J. Rayment 13:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

25 to 3 against, and you're questioning the claim that there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate? And you're simply mistaken that most of the people objecting to him are not on his side of the topic, off the top of my head AvB and Filll are. Also, by your own reasoning here we should note that you happen to share his view on the topic as well, so I'm not sure where you think that line of argument will get you. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm a Christian and believe that the God of the Bible has created the universe, I'm not an ID proponent by any stretch of the imagination. Or any other type of creationist in the extreme US sense for that matter. I fully accept scientific findings supported by a robust body of evidence, which includes evolution. At any rate, the RfC has been sufficiently advertised so the virtually unanimous agreement with FM's assessment is highly significant. AvB ÷ talk 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that raspor seems to have had so much difficulty in reading and following policy, specifically WP:3RR which he was warned of twice (in the first instance not in the recommended format) and allowed to get to 8 reversions before being blocked, then treated it as an unfair personal attack that he'd not been allowed to argue against. As this comment shows he's still having difficulty in understanding what behaviour is expected of him: you've had some success in discussing some things with him, Philip, and it would be good if you could persuade him that he should fully comply with the rules so that an ending of the block is not immediately followed by a repetition of disruptive behaviour. ... dave souza, talk 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record I am in full support of this ban. Based on how he has responded poorly to even the numerous calm and friendly attempts to guide him I suspect he'll be back to his disruptive ways as soon as the ban is lifted. With that in mind I think he has no business editing any ID or ID related articles until he demonstrates an ability to respect other editors, Wiki policies. He could do that by limiting his edits to non-controversial subjects. Mr Christopher 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Raspor's edits to his talk since he's been blocked, I see he's not only continued the personal attacks/name calling, but escalated [104] [105] and has made his talk page a locus of disruption drawing responses from a number of editors. Considering that even while in the pokey he's continued the very sort of disruption that landed him there in the first place, misusing the one priveledge he retained while blocked to turn his talk page into a source of friction, I think Raspor is a hopeless case and therefore a permanent block is the only thing that will put an end to the disruption. And sooner rather than later to spare the community any additional time and goodwill being wasted. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like another editor is encouraging him to initiate a freep fest (ala Free Republic) as a means of retribution for his "treatment" here [106]. How very odd. Mr Christopher 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've just cautioned both against that at Raspor's talk page. Amazingly bad advice from User:Geo.plrd. FeloniousMonk 18:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the first time Geo. has given improper advice - [107]. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The advice is even more worrying given the fact that Geo.plrd is active in advocacy, making him an important source of advice for confused or misconstrued editors. --HassourZain 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm worried about that as well. If there's any oversight going on at WP:AMA, this certainly the sort of behavior they need to be looking into. It should be brought up there I suppose. FeloniousMonk 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Uggggh. I spent far too much time reading up on this case. I've given Raspor a final warning about disruption, and after one more infraction I'll protect the page until the block expires. There's not much point to a block if the person continues the very behavior he or she was blocked for in the first place. -- Merope 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

From the records on Raspor's talk page the observer may note that I've done my best to try to get him to understand the purpose of Wikipedia fruitlessly. I cannot help but think that either he simply cannot understand it or refuses to bother with it, and as I said some time earlier, it's like trying to bail water from a boat using a dixie cup. If I weren't so incorrigibly hardheaded, I think I would have given up trying to help him a while ago. --HassourZain 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

HassourZain, you have demonstrated an amazing patience with raspor and your good faith efforts to be helpful have been noted by me. Mr Christopher 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

HassourZain's efforts are 1st class through and through. It's people like him that make up for the shenanigans of the others and keeps contributing here worthwhile. FeloniousMonk 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, guys. :) --HassourZain 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My thanks too for your admirable and patient words. One problem that came up earlyish was that when I requested raspor to stop trolling, he took this as a personal attack and repeatedly complained about it. The WP:TROLL article definition is dependant on motive, which of course is impossible to judge, and so is useless for defining behaviour which is what's important. The WP:DE article focusses on article edits rather than talk page disruption. Should these guidelines be changed or clarified? .. dave souza, talk 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"...when I requested raspor to stop trolling, he took this as a personal attack and repeatedly complained about it." That's typical 'victim bully' behavior. Dean Dad, in writing about The College Administrator's Survival Guide, by C.K. Gunsalus (Harvard U Press, 2006), notes that Gunsalus distinguishes between traditional, assertive bullies, who throw their weight around with bluster and force, and 'victim bullies,' who use claims of having been wronged to gain leverage over others. He goes on to write "that unlike simple passive-aggression, victim bullies use accusations as weapons, and ramp up the accusations over time. Unlike a normal person, who would slink away in shame as the initial accusations are discredited, a victim bully lacks either guilt or shame, honestly believing that s/he has been so egregiously wronged in some cosmic way that anything s/he does or says is justified in the larger scheme of things. So when the initial accusations are dismissed, the victim bully’s first move is a sort of double-or-nothing, raising the absurdity and the stakes even more. Victim bullies thrive in the no-man's-land created by the deadly combination of slow and cumbersome processes, and failure of administerial nerve. I've had some experience with these, and I can say without reservation that they are, by far, my least favorite editors to wrangle. It's not just that they're unpleasant and batshit crazy; they're self-righteously unpleasant and batshit crazy. They're implausibly persistent. Gunsalus makes the correct point that the key to defeating victim bullies is the classic administrative pincer movement of process-and-time. Easier said than done, but still right." FeloniousMonk 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, FM. On his talk page Raspor coninues to demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of fundamental Wikipedia editing policies as well as being unfamiliar with intelligent design in general (as evidenced here). This is something he has shown since day one. I suspect he has either not yet studied any of our policies or has decided they are of no use to him. This makes working with him impossible. If he'd spend some time actually learning our policies his disruptions would go down by 99% or so. With this is mind, what happens after his block is lifted? I mean from an administrative standpoint, I pretty much know what to expect from him but I'm curious if/when he starts acting out again, will a new Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report need to be submitted or will we utilize this existing one? And will there be an administrator assigned to monitor his behaviour? Mr Christopher 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, judging by his comments on his talk page [[108] my attempt to answer his question(s) seems to have sent him into a mental tail-spin. He seems to be looking for the word "theory" now in every article and inisting we change the other articles to read like the ID one. How can we work with such a person when he begins posting on the article talk page again and not just on his own personal talk page? Mr Christopher 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer the "what next" question - it all depends on how Raspor acts after the block runs out. If he decides to act within accepted norms, then he will probably be given a second chance. If he continues to act as he has been, then I'm sure someone will re-block him. Guettarda 19:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I admit only spot checking his contribs, but this seems like a case where someone, a subject expert, feels his areas of expertise are being poorly represented by the articles and subject novices who are "equal" with him in the WP system. The user is thus getting frustrated and some apparent mob rule against him by other editors is been making matters worse. CyberAnth 21:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure who's who in your analogy. However, raspor has shown no expertise, rather an uncanny ability to play on people's desire to explain things, then pick on points with a remarkable resemblance to standard creationist arguments and interpret or ignore the answers to emerge triumphantly having proved his point. He did it with Talk:Evolution of cetaceans#Again overstatement of evidence, and even confined to his user page, here he goes again. .. dave souza, talk 21:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make the original post more clear. CyberAnth 21:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read through Talk:Evolution of cetaceans#Again overstatement of evidence to the end of the talk page, you'll see that raspor keeps any expertise well concealed. .. dave souza, talk 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth, sorry, I may be dense because I am still not following you. Who is the subject expert you mentioned and what subject is their expertise? Thanks. Mr Christopher 22:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

From the link you gave and the link he gave therein referencing his talk page on the matter, the user obviously appears pretty knowledgeable about ID (or whatever naming variants it goes by). He seems to feel his expertise area is being very poorly represented in articles. He appears to have gotten very frustrated and, from it, done some communication games; but I think this is more a reaction to what really does appear to me as some "mob rule" against him and his views. Keep in mind that my analysis here is coming from someone who is looking in from the outside. You might want to give him an olive branch and really listen to his concerns and see how they can be incorporated into the article some more. In short, appease him by addressing his concerns some more. No one will get their fill plate. That means everyone. CyberAnth 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I am perplexed as I have been studying intelligent design for several years now, I routinely read both sides of the debate even today. I have also read a tremendous amout of posts and responses from raspor since he stumbled upon the intelligent design article and I have yet to read a single item written by him that suggests he has even a conversational understanding of intelligent design. and certainly not a subject expert on intelligent design. But based on what you have expressed I am obviously overlooking very important information and evidence that should be weighed in this Administrators' noticeboard/Incident. Would you mind helping out by showing a few diffs/examples where raspor has demonstrated a subject expertise in intelligent design? Thank will help me and I think others here quite a bit. Thanks again. <insert> also, some examples where he simply came accross as "obviously knowledgable" would help too. Mr Christopher 06:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Intriguing. I appreciate that CyberAnth has only been able to spot check raspor's contributions before commenting, and the sympathy is entirely understandable. However the impression that raspor was immediately set upon by a mob is not supported by looking at his start on the ID article. His first contribution there on 22 December was unfortunate, as he deleted the previous post and was reverted.[109] [110] with the comment (please do not remove or edit others' posts), then he did the same again on the talk page[111] and on the page of the editor who'd reverted the first comment.[112] This could of course be a newbie's error, but oddly enough it's a mistake raspor did not make almost a month earlier when first editing a talk page.[113] Anyway, that mistake was sorted out and discussion resumed at Permission. If you read down you'll find editors responding to raspor's opinions by asking him to "please read" archives at links they provided, "If you have some new points which have not been hashed out already, please feel free to bring them up" and to "Please provide a reliable source" for his assertions. He did not do the latter, despite having learnt the hard way about the need to cite sources on his first article by the 28th of November.[114] His responses lack such niceties of politeness, and introduce allegations of bias and inaccuracy without any supporting citations. If that's being set upon by a mob, it was a remarkably polite and patient mob. .. dave souza, talk 10:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth: you said the user obviously appears pretty knowledgeable about ID. Really? I have not seen any evidence that Raspor knows much about ID at all. On the contrary, s/he seems to be sadly unaware of much of the issues surrounding ID. In fact, Raspor recently said that s/he was starting to read the Wedge document, which is one of the fundamental documents related to ID. While Raspor is very aggressive in his/her assertions, s/he has not displayed much knowledge of either ID or science. Guettarda 16:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth is mistaken, Raspor is hardly a subject matter expert. As seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor he is regarded as not knowledgable on the topic of ID by every credible long time contributor to that article. The fact is the greatest cause of Raspor's problems here, other than his refusal to comprehend and follow our policies, is his incomplete knowledge of the subject matter. He is apparently either aware of only one side's opinion, or he is intentionally promoting only that side's view, neither of which makes for good editing. FeloniousMonk 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just provided an evidenced summary that suggests raspor is as wholly unfamiliar with the subject matter as he is of fundamental Wiki editing policies here that I think is worth considering. Mr Christopher 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor's understanding of the subject matter has been made irrelevant by his attitude and actions. Throw him out. But let him return when he is ready to abide by Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:AGF. AvB ÷ talk 01:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raspor's agenda

Raspor's edit here makes it crystal clear that his agenda in editing Wikipedia is not to help preserve NPOV when editing the Intelligent Design article, but to show the embittered and hateful atheists that intelligent design simply is. I issued a warning that characterizing the other side of the debate as atheists (and bitter ones at that) violates WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and possibly even WP:NPA. I have zero experience with RFCs, but if someone wants to tell me where to put this diff (or to copy it over for me), he or she is free to do so. -- Merope 14:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he's already clearly demonstrated that he's more interested in causing disruption than contributing in good faith, as this comment indicates: [115] His 1 week block for disruption ends tomorrow, and since he's exhausted the community's patience by continuing the disruption while blocked, by all indications his wish may be granted. FeloniousMonk 01:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC

Looking at more recent edits[116] [117], raspor appears to be an outraged victim of what s/he perceives as unfair treatment. While his or her behaviour continues to match the description in Edit warring, I've not seen any evidence that this is deliberate trolling. However this all shows that raspor has to be treated very correctly. Further disruption on various talk pages is likely unless raspor has learnt to keep to the purpose of talk pages and to stop aggressively demanding answers to apparently off-topic questions. .. dave souza, talk 09:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

His block expired today. Will he get an official notice to that affect so that he knows? The other day he had asked how much longer it was going to be so I am assuming he does not know. I think an admin or other neutral party should inform him. Mr Christopher 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed community ban

One day since his block expired and he's again out of his tree disrupting Talk:Intelligent design with off-topic incoherent rants and trolling his user talk page. Not to mention uploading unlicensed images which he's put to good use flouting WP:POINT on his talk page. Minimizing his disruption is taking up way too time and effort of at least four contributors with far better things to do, like write an encyclopedia. He's long past having exhausted the community's patience. FeloniousMonk 04:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed he is now accusing an administrator (who has been doing an exemplary job if you ask me)of "siding with the darwinists" and also stating she is "biased" and he wants to know who "monitors" her. It's on his talk page. Maybe it is too soon to judge but based on his behaviour after his block was lifted he does not seem to get it. Any of it. This is getting out of hand. Mr Christopher 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

After trying to negotiate with him, I'm just spent. His POV pushing, his baseless accusations, his attempts to engage users in debate over principles rather than articles, and his persistent refusal to be civil push me to endorse a community ban. (Uh, if a ban has been proposed. If not, I propose it.) -- Merope 20:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban (community ban that is, the sooner the better) Mr Christopher 20:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban - this guy just does not get it, and the patience of the community has been exhausted trying to explain. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

what is a community ban?? raspor 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BAN. From all of Wikipedia, in this case. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban Guettarda 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. FeloniousMonk 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. BenBurch 17:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This issue has gone on long enough, so I've gone ahead and blocked him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the ban will stick if no admin will unblock, but is 5 hours long enough for a community ban to be discussed? From the sound of it, the block is totally justified, but from WP:BAN#Community_ban:

"There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is widespread community support for the block, and should note the block on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as part of the review process. Additionally, "community ban" wording should be noted in the block log. With such support, the user is considered banned and must be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community"). Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users."

I'd have thought a longer discussion period was warranted. And how many is a "handful" of admins or users? PS. The link you give in the template will break once the thread is archived. PPS. Banned user should be listed at Wikipedia:List of banned users - I haven't done so as there seems to be the need for a little potted history to go with the entry. Worryingly, that whole page looks like a vandal shrine. Carcharoth 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhapse we can think of it as a temperary injunction while the discussion continues. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I failed to read the much longer part of the thread further up the page... That is more than a handful of users. If that previous discussion is the basis for the community ban, I'll stop quibbling. Or call it an injunction, whatever. Same end result in all likelihood. Carcharoth 02:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind we're dealing with someone who got a 24 hour block, and then a seven day block (both within 8 days). And now he has earned a community ban. It's not like this ban was the first course of action. Mr Christopher 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I can't defend his reaction to Merope's posts on his talk page, and any defence I put up of him would be outweighed by everyone else, so I have little doubt that this ban would have happened anyway. But I do wonder about the integrity of a discussion on a ban that is over so quickly that it's finished before one of his main defenders (me) even knows it's happening. Even if he got a just outcome, that's not justice being seen to be done. Philip J. Rayment 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify some points, this thread has been open for 10 days. For a comparison, RFAs, by which community consensus is determined regarding whether an editor should receive administrative tools, are open for 7 days. Anyone who wished to discuss this user should have been able to do so within these 10 days, as many above did. 10 days, with evidence that is pretty much as clear as daylight as in this case, is more than enough time to garner community consensus. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 05:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I endorse a community ban. However, shouldn't the length of the block be discussed? For one thing, an indef community ban means the user has to wait for a year before they can appeal to the ArbCom, instead of being allowed to do so straight away. AvB ÷ talk 12:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that sentence in WP:BAN only applies to bans issued by the Arbcom, although it needs clarification (will ask on the talk page after this post). I was under the impression that the Arbcom can override us any time they wish, if they choose to do so. As for length, in my opinion, any block longer than a week rapidly approaches pointlessness, as any user that needs to be kept away from the encyclopaedia for longer than that probably isn't going to have resolved their problem by the time they get back. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The wording at WP:BAN seems, indeed, ambiguous. Your take on it sounds much more realistic. I've been wondering if we shouldn't somehow take into account Raspor's apparent age and/or inexperience in cooperating with others. His behavior may well change over time even if he does not consciously acknowledge what he did wrong and decide to follow Wikipedia's rules in the future. I would like to welcome him back as soon as he is ready to do the latter. An appeal would provide that option. AvB ÷ talk 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had a hard time figuring out whether Raspor is unable to see the problem, or whether he is just trolling. As I have said in the past, I am willing to support a community ban only on articles related to evolution and creation, including talk pages, for some extended period (like a month, initially) to give him/her the opportunity to learn to be a Wikipedian on topics that are both less controversial and (hopefully) ones s/he can approach from a more dispassionate position. A week away didn't help. So either a month away from Wikipedia, or a month away from evolution and creation related articles (broadly defined), with the option to extend it to other topics if s/he behaves similarly elsewhere. Obviously if my suggestion is followed, Raspor should be given the choice of which option s/he prefers. Guettarda 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>For that it is worth I doubt he would behave any better on less controversial subject only because his comments tell me he either has never read a single Wiki policy or has no use for them. Even his post ban comments on his talk page reflect he still doesn't get it and believes he is being victimized by "darwinists". His inability to objectively observe his own behaviour makes him a social liability in any setting. If there is a discussion of "lessening" his ban I don't care what he edits as long as it is not ID, evo, biology or science related. That said I would pity those editors who find themselves having to work with him on any subject. Philip J. Rayment has shown an interst in him, perhaps we might let him work with Phil on an article where he has been a significant contributor. Mr Christopher 16:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Christopher. Raspor did not appear to ever demonstrate any interest in understanding the fundamental tenets that Wikipedia is founded on, reading policy pages, or cooperating with other editors who civilly disagreed with him. He appeared to construe text that did not openly advocate for the ideas he preferred as deeply biased against his cause. In spite of the effort that I exhausted in trying to help him, he appeared to have one idea set in his head from his first edit to a page regarding the controversial topic he edited at. I am sorry to see him blocked for exhausting community patience, but I understand the reasoning behind it. --HassourZain 18:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not endorse I don't believe a ban from Wikipedia is appropriate. i can see a ban from ID and maybe a block, but not an indef ban. Would anyone be willing to mentor Raspor, as an alternative? Geo. 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Mentoring I offer my services, as one who is uninvolved in this case. Canadian-Bacon 08:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, I believe that's what I was trying to do. The problem is he refuses to read any policy that is linked for him (as evidenced by his comment that I didn't answer his question about what a community ban was after I linked him to WP:BAN.) But, hell, if y'all want to beat a dead horse, be my guest. -- Merope 15:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If concensus says that he's completely exhausted the community's patience(which it seems it has), than of course no it wouldn't be a worthwhile endeavor. But in the case that he is given one last chance, my offer to serve as a mentor would stand. Canadian-Bacon 16:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse community ban. Raspor has been given enough opportunity to turn over a new leave, and continues to refuse to do so. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal info issue

This diff looks like it's problematic; I wasn't sure if I should take it to oversight or just ask for the revision to be deleted, so thought I'd drop a note here and ask if someone could handle it here. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• As a non admin I suggest oversight and blocking the IP for 24h (I believe it is shared). Yuser31415 06:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You can post this to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Thanks. Chick Bowen 16:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oversight is warranted, but immediate deletion would be good in the meantime. Newyorkbrad 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's odd, I don't see anything there...Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox categories

See here. What was the general opinion again regarding attaching categories to userboxes? >Radiant< 10:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is by editing interest, abilities or geography (...from Alabama...interested in politics) then there's no problem. If it is by POV, political stance, religious affiliation, pro or anti- anying, then certainly not.--Doc^g 10:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words most of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia philosophy should be deleted, since they're pro- or anti- a certain POV. >Radiant< 11:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say so. But since I became a figure of hate in the userbox fiascos, I'm not deleting anything connected with userboxes.--Doc^g 11:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've definitely nuked lots of categories like this before. Somewhere along the line people started getting this totally incorrect notion that because a userbox existed, it should have a category. So now we have thousands of worthless unencylopedic categories that deal with issues of such monumental importance as which actor who played Dr. Who a given Wikipedian prefers the most. --Cyde Weys 19:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this RfA spam, or acceptable behaviour?

An oppose voter on a current RFA (for user:Jakew) has been posting messages to various peoples talk pages (including my own) suggesting that "You might like to comment on ..."

Is this normal or accepted conduct in the RfA process? It seems a little below board for my tastes. Crimsone 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like canvassing, which is not cool. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not cool at all. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The user persisted past warnings and explanation, and I blocked for 24 hours. I'd advise blocking for the duration of the RfA if he continues after this. I trust this isn't too controversial an action? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hope not. The "campaign" was disruptive (at least in terms of the time spent on dealing with it, attempts at influencing an RfA, and in terms of userpage "spam"). Seems like a reasonable block to me. Crimsone 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an unblock request now if anybody uninvolved would be interested. well that went a little too quickly for me to keep up with. it's done now. Crimsone 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV-pushing on GQ article

Can an admin please look into the edits of BorisVian (talk • contribs)? This appears to be a single purpose account used to skew the GQ article away from a neutral, referenced article towards a promotional press release. --Muchness 19:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Difference

Do I report problems here, what is the difference betweent this place and noticeboard?

Yes, please report incidents that require administrator attention here. The noticeboard itself is more intended for discussion of bigger issues relating to administrative work, and notices of issues that may impinge upon them. Nobody will penalise anyone for using the wrong one, though, but the message may get moved. Hope that helps. Proto::► 20:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.60.163.16

The user with IP 24.60.163.16 (often goes by the name of "Tonganoxie Jim") has been previously blocked and continues to do "sneaky vandalism" as before. Can this user be considered for a more permanent block? —Mike 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)