Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive304

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Britney Spears's fifth studio album 2 Audius Mtawarira 3 User:Jamietna23 4 Wikipedia is sluggish today... 5 Jean-Paul Ney article has become a battleground. 6 Userspace Salt Pages 7 More allegations and disruptive editing 8 Russian rock redirects 9 Another ClaimJumperPete Sockpuppet 10 Edit war getting personal 11 Hon203 (talk · contribs) 12 User:Skateremorocker continues to delete sources and citation requests, among other things 13 User:Steindavida again 14 Richard Simonsen 15 Dangerous vandalism by 172.206.200.27 16 negationist 16.1 User:Igor "the Otter" and Holocaust denial 17 User Posting Spam 18 User Carl Hewitt. Sockpuppets and ban 19 SatyrBot bezerk 20 Link To MySpace Profile Valid? 21 User:Whitmorewolveyr 22 User:Ninjamooses 23 User:Rodsan18 24 BigGabriel555‎ 25 User:Jeeny 26 User:Igor "the Otter"'s anti-Semitism 27 User:FourthAve 28 RedSpruce...again 29 The Jewish Bolshevism 30 Please issue warning to user:EditorEsquire re: ownership, NPV and removal of sourced quotes and statistics 31 New user following in tracks of banned user, and leaving pleasant edit summary 32 Potentionally libeous information being added to Martha Hart article by range of IP's 33 Edits from Banned Sockpuppets 34 Rogue Gremlin Violation -- Sockpuppetry 35 RS1900 personal attacks and threats 36 User:Pgsylv 37 Civility problems on Talk:Frida Kahlo 38 Serial vandal but infrequent 39 Fidel Castro 40 Protection for Wendy's article (and KFC also) 41 Edit warring, incivility, possible 3RR at Korean cuisine 42 Block Review - Netmonger (talk · contribs) 43 Miranda Grell and related pages 44 Vandalism from a number of IP addresses against pages edited by Dbachmann (talk · contribs) 45 How to deal with Vandal-only accounts that are not active 46 Requesting block review 47 User:Rich568117 48 Excessive flagicons in football/soccer infoboxes 49 Inappropriate image 50 User:Rickyrab 51 User:Milomedes 52 British National Party 53 Repeated Personal Attacks by Suspected Sock Puppet 54 Policy violations on Samael Aun Weor article 55 User:Dn4cfc 56 Help for a WP:DUCKy situation 57 User:Crazydoodle69 58 Continued edit warring and refusal to discuss. 59 Range block 60 User without control 61 Revert-warrior 61.1 response to Arrow740 62 Mass image mistaggings by BetacommandBot 62.1 Arbitrary section break 62.2 Temporary suspension of CSD for images 63 My "Only Warning" 64 Name Calling, Reverting, Incivility from Anon Editor/IvoBastardo 65 User:MarIth 66 Tag-team edit warriors. 67 Breach of NPA 68 Inappropriate External Links 69 User:ScottAHudson 70 vandal 71 User:Donjavy 72 on-going low-level sockproblem 73 Administrator incompetence and misbehaviour 74 User:Eric.kronenberger 75 Mothertrucker Band Page Deleted: Admin No Longer Active 76 Question regarding a rude editor 77 User:Pgsylv AGAIN 78 Rktect claims to have been improperly blocked over Arbcom enforcement 79 POV-pushing by User:PHG 80 Deborah Mayer 81 Policy violating article / consensus not respected / suspected sock puppetry 82 Confirmed sockpuppetry by User:IronAngelAlice 83 Dr. Seaweed - Disruption and insults by sockpuppets? 84 Courtesy blanking of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats 84.1 AfD discussions no longer show up on google

[edit] Britney Spears's fifth studio album

Some hyper-enthusiastic Britney fan has changed the title of this article to Blackout without any sources. The article itself has been changed back to Britney Spears's fifth studio album, but not the talk page. My concern is that since the Blackout article is tagged for speedy deletion, if it is deleted, the talkpage for Britney Spears's fifth studio album will somehow disappear too. Can someone who is more technically inclined than I am please lend a hand? Thanks. Jeffpw 14:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audius Mtawarira

They is extraneous text at the end of this article, which I cannot attribute to any edit. The text is overt vandalism. Whay can be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Part (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The text was transcluded onto the page through {{Zimbabwe-bio-stub}}. I reverted it. WODUP 16:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jamietna23

Jamietna23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) This editor's soul reason for being here seems to be to upload images of dubious copyright validity and then repetitively insert them in their corresponding articles. Despite numerous notifications, they continue to do so. I've attempted to communicate with them, as has at least one other editor I'm aware of. Perhaps an admin could take a look? Thanks, Into The Fray ^T/C 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just coming here to report the same person. There have attempts at discussing this with the user.[1][2][3], they clearly have no concept of copyright violation, and even upload images under a different name when the original one gets deleted[4], and their 'contributions' to Elisha Cuthbert are clearly violating WP:3RR. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 18:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also guessing that Special:Contributions/67.68.245.48 and Special:Contributions/65.92.130.191 (both BellCanada IPs) are the same user, logged out, to try and avoid 3RR. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 19:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please can someone look at this, it's getting silly. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 20:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of these images are clearly copyvios. [5][6][7][8] With that in mind, and the editors lack of communication, I would be surprised if the others weren't. The editor hasn't given any copyright info on any of them. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 21:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I third the request for attention. User keeps uploading unlicenced images, regardless of being warned numerous times and does not respond at all to communication. --Kudret abi^Talk 21:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Pretty obvious copyvio case. Wizardman 21:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt attention and also removing all the copyvio images. Best, --Kudret abi^Talk 22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is sluggish today...

- my network was being sluggish today. --Solumeiras ^talk 22:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

...anyone else noticed?? --Solumeiras ^talk 17:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Paul Ney article has become a battleground.

The Jean-Paul Ney article is a bloody mess due to the POV-pushing of various parties (CastroSUX and Castelmore are currently the two worst culprits) and an edit war that has been ongoing since June of this year ([[9]]). At the beginning, it was mostly anonymous users edit warring (Tamiflu42 admits here [[10]] to using two different IPs (128.178.124.121 & 83.219.98.225) to make edits, requests an end to the edit war and suggests settling the issues on the talk page) after which anon 82.67.185.164 soon became the most active editor (changes to this article are nearly the sum total of this user's edits [[11]] until the aforementioned CastroSUX and Castlemore became involved in August ([[12]]). (My personal suspicion is that the anon 82.67.185.164 and CastroSUX are one and the same person.) Attempts to settle issues on the talk page have failed, with all parties involved rewriting talk page comments ([[13]], [[14]], [[15]]) and making various threats ([[16]]. Users Castlemore and CastroSUX/82.67.185.164 have also carried the war to Castlemore's talk page ([[17]]]]) wherein Castlemore made the accusation that CastroSUX/82.67.185.164 is, in fact, Jean-Paul Ney himself.

At this point, the article should be protected from editing until various issues (including any conflict(s)-of-interest and the factual basis of the claims in the article [the sources used are highly suspect, including Mr. Ney's personal website]) have been worked out. Users Castlemore and CastroSUX/82.67.185.164 should also be strongly cautioned against edit-warring in future. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to take a slightly different approach to this article than usual. The edit warring is not that severe and the article needs work. I don't think locking it down is the best approach. Instead I am going to institute a state of 1RR. Anything more than 1 revert by any user will result in a short block. Any type of threat, personal attack, or harassment will also result in a block. I have also blocked User:82.67.185.164 for the legal threat on the talk page. Anything disputed should be discussed on the talk page, but the dispute and a slow edit war should not stop needed improvement. I will copy this comment to user talk pages of those involved in the dispute and the article talk page, so there will be no "I didn't know" excuse for edit warring. Mr.Z-man 19:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Any approach that will lead to the article's improvement and the end of edit-warring, sock-puppetry, article ownsership, etc., is fine with me. I have no axe to grind on this topic, nor any preferred outcome other than a proper article. Thanks for taking this on, Mr.Z-man. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on this article. I came on to just take a look at the translation aspects and to correct awkward syntax, and haven't had time to really do much else. Your approach seems a good one and is productive as well since it allows the article to continue development in a positive way. (olive 22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Userspace Salt Pages

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Private_Salt_pages. Regards, Navou ^banter 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More allegations and disruptive editing

User:SqueakBox is usually a moderately good editor, but gets carried away on subjects that he has a problem with. In addition to his repeated blanking of articles of high importance to WP:PAW, he has made so many accusations of pedophilia and "pedophile activism" towards other editors, it's getting to be a joke now. I'll list the most recent examples, to make it simple.

After I reported him for possible socking, he continued his habit of accusing oppositional editors of "pro pedophile activism" (the name of the article that he continually bombards with POV pushing sentiment).

He then deleted the three possible sock tags that I placed ([18][19][20]) on his possible socks' userpages. When I warned him that they were required by the accepted policy, he reverted them again. He is now attempting to speedy delete the sock report that contains the evidence against him. Dyskolos 19:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers have confirmed several times that there is no link between Squeakbox and the three users whom Dyskolos claims to be his socks. Sam Blacketer 21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Read my complaint. This is not the subject, hence my listing of the sock evidence on the appropriate board, as opposed to here (BTW, IP tracking is not the end all of sockpuppetry). I have listed one disruptive comment and six clear contraventions of policy (three after warnings were given). Could you now please carry out the process properly, i.e. argue why such editing is acceptable by Wikipedia standards, and then declare the topic resolved.

Thank you for your co-operation Dyskolos 22:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dyskolos seems to be engaging in forum shopping here. Obviously were the checkuser results inconclusive the SSP might be necessary but given that the accounts he claim to be SqueakBox edit from a different continent, allegations of socking seem to be rather far fetched. I agree with Sam that there is nothing further to be done here - if anything these allegations have already had more admin attention than they deserved. WjBscribe 22:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, an admin ignores the actual complaint. As explained ad nauseum, I am not complaining about the SqueakBox - Pol64 connection. If I were, yes, I would be forum shopping. My complaints relate to his consistantly disruptive editing which includes page blanking, filthy accusations and reverting against policies agreed upon by admins like yourself. We should not be tolerating partisan and disruptive editing, especially when it involves the bullying of others, ignorance of consensus and the wrecking of a fine resource.

Now, please give me some response in relation to the listed complaints, as opposed to the complaints swept under the carpet elsewhere. Dyskolos 22:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are making new accusations without diffs, please don't, SqueakBox 22:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The diffs of the new "accusations" (in fact, mere confirmations of violated policy) follow directly after the diffs of my changes, as explained. Providing the first diff link, when no intermediate edits were made, allows the admin to follow the incident through. But this is irrelevant for as long as these admins continue to employ the Chewbacca defense. Until some lightbulb turns up, I might as well give up for now. Dyskolos 23:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to continue this I want the diffs for your allegations of "page blanking, filthy accusations and reverting against policies agreed upon". otherwise following scribe's advice would be a good idea, SqueakBox 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned in the header, I will not be listing all of these violations (this is not a RfC), although you have previously blanked the articles on APA, Danish Pedophile Assoc, History of Pedophile Activism, one of Tony's articles (can't recall now) and 90 - 95% of the PPA article without consensus or AfD. Your record of accusations includes agendas, pro-pedophile activism and clear implications of pedophilia. These are all things that you have done, which I do not currently wish to bring to justice. You should be happy about this. I have provided diffs for the violations of policy. If an admin cares to click forward three times on each diff, they will see all six violations in full. Dyskolos 23:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But that isn't the whole story, is it? SqueakBox 23:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If its already been confirmed that those aren't his sockpuppets, how is the tag removal a violation? Shell ^babelfish 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The sock enquiry was in process when he reverted six times, and three times after warning. 205.196.208.17 01:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian rock redirects

M.V.E.i. (talk · contribs) has just created dozens of redirects, all to Russian rock and Bard (Soviet Union); most of them are on terms that are only tangential at best (e.g. redirecting European Music, Acoustic songs and Guitar rock to Russian rock). As I've already had an exchange of views with him today on a completely unrelated matter (repeatedly changing the results of an archived AfD to what he thinks it ought to be - this was his "explanation"), I don't want to take any action myself as it will no doubt lead to an accusation of stalking - and I'm not sure any policy's actually being broken here as he hasn't overwritten existing content - could someone else take a look at his contribs today and either decide there's no problem/offer suitable words of advice, as appropriate? (Looking at the talk page, this is not the first problem with POV-pushing from this user, to say the least.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My favorite new redirect is Good music. Obviously these are bad redirects. Someone needs to either fix them, or delete them. — Moe ε 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I left him a message. Obviously some of these redirects violated WP:NPOV and some were just misleading. There were some that were just blatant typos that were redirects to the wrong location. Most I tagged for speedy deletion per {{db-r3}} and some, like the acoustic redirects, I redirected to Acoustic music. — Moe ε 20:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think all the POV redirects have been either deleted or re-redirected now. Marking this as resolved for the moment, but this user probably bears keeping an eye on. Natalie 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another ClaimJumperPete Sockpuppet

ClaimJumperPete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is apparently at it again.

Mytur Banisdirty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)'s first post was to WP:RFCUN, "asking to clarify that the use of this username won't be contested." [21]

Following this request, he created what he titled his "Lineup", a list of CJP socks with their number of vandalisms and commentary about their success rate (made in CJP's signature "hillbilly" dialect).

When User:Aecis checked his contribs and noticed his smoking gun, the user stated "Actually, its a friend of mine that's making all those accounts. He told us about it in the truck yesterday and we couldn't stop laughing. I'm not the one doing it, but I am his friend; I don't know exactly where that would place me on the issue." [22]

Aside from the obvious evidence, this matches ClaimJumperPete's MO of getting amusement from "putting his head inside the lion's mouth" using his socks. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 20:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war getting personal

There is an edit war on Office_Open_XML user Hal has decided to make it personal [23] Calling me "You are just a sad little person." This is against wikipedia policy WP:NPA as far as I understand it. This is a comment on me , not the subject. I have already filed a 3rr violation on hal for removing a referenced edit 4 times. Kilz 22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hon203 (talk · contribs)

This user has been prolifically edit warring within the past 24 hours on Afghanistan-related pages, such as Ahmad Zahir‎, Asad Badie‎, and Ehsan Aman‎. He keeps changing phrases like "Afghanistani singer" to "Afghan singer" and filed a WP:RFAR over the issue. Besides the major 3RRing on Ehsan Aman and almost-3RRing on ohter pages, he has resorted to personal attacks, calling users racist [24][25] and tauntingly assuring them that they will be banned [26]. Not only that, I believe Qbzad (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet, or the other way around, as both accounts have warred over Afghanistani/Afghan. I've reported Hon203 for 3RR, though I'd like wider input. hbdragon88 23:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe "Afghan singer" is the correct phrase. Calling someone racist should not be considered personal attack. Instead of reporting just one person, you should have reported all the people involved in the edit war. You don't sound as a neutral person, this probably means that you dislike Hon203 based on his ethnic grounds has stated that that's what he is.--Hindu-Boar 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a wild guess at what my ethnicity is. I claim complete ignorance of the ethnic groups in in the Middle East. The only remotely Middle Eastern thing I have done is to dispute a rfu tag for an image of some Afghanistan leader that was killed in the 1990s. WP:AGF, please. Hon203 espeically came to my attention because complete new people often do not know what WP:RFAR is, plus the pattern of edits from Hon203 and Qbzad was extremely fishy. The other two parties have done anything like that, as both have long contribution histories before this recent edit war. hbdragon88 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here on Wiki, especially regarding what they claim or say about themselves. You say that new users are bad people but those who have been blocked multiple times for edit-warring are the good people? That way of thinking is totally stupid. Beh-nam (talk · contribs) and Anoshirawan (talk · contribs) have both been editing the same exact articles for several months now, and User:Anoshirawan is considered a new editor. Both Anoshirawan and Beh-nam have the same agenda, make same particular changes, (example: changing "Afghan" to "Afghanistani" everywhere they see it, targeting Pashtun ethnic group but never do they mess with other ethnic groups of Afghanistan).--Hindu-Boar 00:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and edit warring. --Haemo 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, I reported Anshirawan as well, and he's been blocked for a week. Picaroon removed the ArbCom case. I believe we can call this resolved. hbdragon88 03:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Skateremorocker continues to delete sources and citation requests, among other things

Here are some of his edits of the past 10 days:

Examples of sources being deleted:

• [27]
• [28]
• [29]

Examples of citation requests being deleted:

• [30]
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• [34]

Examples of changing sourced information:

• [35]
• [36]
• [37]

Hoponpop69 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why was this not even acknowledged by anyone?Hoponpop69 22:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Steindavida again

Steindavida (talk · contribs) continues to use anon socks to repeatedly add himself to The Amityville Curse and Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School (Vancouver). As a new sock pops up it gets blocked, but he just finds another anon IP address and re-adds himself, making sure to make uncivil comments about other Users in particular and Wikipedia in general. Repeatedly reverting him does no good, as he just reinserts himself and his vandalistic edits. Even edits which do not directly address him (such as changing a link from Helen Hughes in The Amityville Curse to Helen Hughes (actress) get reverted. Corvus cornix 01:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Both articles mentioned have been semi-protected. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Simonsen

This article appears to be being edited by the subject; he's added a lot of personal, unsourced bio. ThuranX 03:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced to a Norwegian website. If the claims are legit then he's notable as a former international athlete. The claims themselves look credible - specific enough and less grandiose than a typical hoax. Suggest templating it for better sourcing and leaving a COI caution on the editor's talk page. BTW this kind of report normally goes to WP:COIN. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 03:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did a revert a few minutes later, to the sourced version... but I'll tkae it to COIN next time. ThuranX 03:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Good call. Durova^Charge! 04:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dangerous vandalism by 172.206.200.27

This edit from the IP address 172.206.200.27 changed a safety warning on Pinch (plasma physics) to make experimentation with high voltage appear to be harmless. The edit summary, in contrast, claimed to be making a technical change, and even went to the length of citing a reference in the edit summary to disguise the true nature of the eidt. This IP should be immediately and indefinitely blocked. --Art Carlson 07:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I warned the IP. In most cases, we don't block IP's indefinitely because even static IP addresses are routinely reassigned to different people.--Chaser - T 07:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure you know best how to handle this. --Art Carlson 10:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] negationist

From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive286:

User:Igor "the Otter" seems to have followed the well worn path of negationist and switched his/her attention to Bombing of Dresden in World War II. As the negationism article says "Claims of "counter-genocide", leading to a confusion between victims and executioners (for example, the Bombing of Dresden in World War II has been said by Holocaust deniers to be a "counter-genocide", thus transforming the German people into victims and henceforth exempting them from any kind of moral responsibility;...". I would appreciate it if others would monitor his/her contributions to the bombing of Dresden. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Indef-blocked, see WP:ANI#User:Igor_.22the_Otter.22.27s_anti-Semitism above. --Stephan Schulz 09:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Posting Spam

User 81.105.14.60 is posting some strange messages on people's talk pages [41] with a link to his mobile phone number asking them to call him. Not sure what this is all about but it looks dodgy to me (apologies in advance for not assuming good faith)! As an aside he was also incivil to a bot here [42]. Kelpin 09:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I blocked and then unblocked and left a message. I'm not sure if anything more than this is necessary. Incivility to bots? Meh.--Chaser - T 09:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bots have rights too!  :-) Thanks for your help. Kelpin 09:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

'Incivil to a bot'? That's a bannin'! Thanks for the laugh, R. Baley 10:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the comment is made to a bot, though, the accusation of shoddy programming is pretty clearly directed to the non-bot programmer. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the comment was directed at several wiki-programmers or "wiki code monkeys" as he called them. Aside from the facts that is pretty incivil the people who write the wiki code know far more about their job than I do (and I suspect far more than this ip poster does) and they do deserve respect from those of us who use wikipedia not abuse like this. Kelpin 15:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Carl Hewitt. Sockpuppets and ban

Carl Hewitt is subject to various restrictions under Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt. He has recently been acting under the name User:Tressider; this can be deduced from his contributions history and from his discussion on Denotational semantics. He has used this sockpuppet to create a new article and to create a new category. I think he has been banned from doing both of these. I am not sure whether the article and category should exist. Sam Staton 11:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider filing a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Hewitt was not completely banned, and he is still allowed to edit in certain areas, though his use of sock puppets seems unlikely to win any friends. He is declining to follow consensus on Talk:Denotational semantics. He was originally criticized for pushing his POV about concurrent computation and that seems to be continuing. Per Arbcom he is banned from autobiographical editing, and as User:Tressider he has just now been editing Carl Hewitt. See also Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/CarlHewitt. EdJohnston 16:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SatyrBot bezerk

It would appear SatyrBot has lost it. Satyr is on vacation so could an admin please shut it off. The issue is that the bot is tagging pages for the Chicago WikiProject and tagging articles that have already been tagged. If someone could please shut it down until Satyr can figure it out that would be most excellent. IvoShandor 12:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked it for the time being, and will unblock when the owner gets back from vacation and can fix it. Natalie 13:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link To MySpace Profile Valid?

I'm curious as to whether or not this belongs. There isn't any thing from MySpace itself that states this is why the profile was deleted and as such, there might be some speculation here. Drumpler 13:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I started to have a look and got sidetracked when I realised that although this article looks well referenced and legitimate, of its 35 references, 26 are from its own website (nccg.org), 8 are from groups.msn.com, and 1 from geocities. Its own website is on geocities, and its only "real" media references are in 2 local Swedish newspapers. Hmm. AFD? Neil ム 13:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has had vested interest in this article, I think it may well have to be done. Not much has been written about this group and it isn't as widely known outside of its local Swedish community. Likewise, the entire history of the page has been such that its resorted to a mudslinging match between a few editors who are arguing as to what does (and doesn't) belong. I would suggest perhaps AfD and maybe put a ban up so it can't be recreated. I'd do the same for New Covenant Church of God (Sweden) which redirects to it. It should be known that the group has a private Opera community and admonishes its members to "keep the Wikipedia article accurate" in its links page [43]. Drumpler 13:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Whitmorewolveyr

I am just wanting to point this guy out to you guys. He's been blocked a few times before (see block log). Now, he keeps putting {{helpme}} on his talk page, asking for his IP to be unblocked. I don't know what he things he will achieve by using the helpme template since not too many admins check that. Anyways, I left the helpme template there, so hopefully somebody can give him an answer as to if his IP will be unblocked or not. There is a whole mess of discussion on his talk page User talk:Whitmorewolveyr#Blocked (2) that I don't even understand. - Rjd0060 14:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it's a checkuser block, better let Jpgordon handling it. I removed the helpme template. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 15:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. - Rjd0060 16:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ninjamooses

This individual is posting a lot of nonsensical vanity/attack articles and removing the deletion notices to boot. Lots of warnings from lots of responsible individuals, myself included. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 16:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandal-only account indef blocked. -- Avi 16:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rodsan18

The user is tagging multiple articles that they created for deletion based on the fact that as they work for the UN they should not be the ones to write them. It this an acceptable reason. I'm sure the user is acting with good intentions and not meaning to be disruptive. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who is affected; a particular group is making issue out of these due to confidentiality reasons. - Dragonbite 22:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of all the deletion templates. Until this matter is sorted out here, please do not reinsert the templates. I do not doubt your good intentions here, and I am assuming good faith, but let's allow the matter to be sorted out rather than getting into a revert war. Your reasoning is, quite frankly, baffling to me. Are you saying that there are people at the UN who are making an issue about the existence of these pages? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - Dragonbite 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

At a quick scan, a lot of these articles look to be of dubious notability anyway. ELIMINATORJR 22:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a couple you missed, RepublicanJacobite. As for the dubious notability I agree, but isn't dubious notability a case for AfD (or possibly {{prod}} rather than simply blanking and adding a non-standard speedy template? Tonywalton  | Talk 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, speaking as someone who had actually deleted a couple of them (I've restored them until this is worked out), I'd say that regardless of the template applied, lack of assertion of notability is sufficient for speedy deletion, full stop. The ones I saw really didn't assert notability. But, given that it's contentious, I've restored 'em to let someone else look at them. - Philippe | Talk 22:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am affiliated with UN too. Writing articles about UN-related subjects need permission (for me). I was informed. So I suggest Wikipedia itself, if the community wants to retain these articles, send permission request (for images too for all language Wikipedias) by contacting Ms. Renu Bhatia, Deputy Executive Officer, Department of General Assembly and Conference Management by sending email at bhatia@un.org. Thank you. Please send me a copy (cc) via my email only. - Dragonbite 22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that's going to work... the bell has been rung, and they're in the 'pedia. If the images truly were appropriately licensed when uploaded, we don't need permission to use them. We certainly don't need permission to have a bio of someone on the 'pedia, either. I still believe notability is not asserted for most of these, but that's just me... - Philippe | Talk 22:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if deleted from Wikipedia some are still available on the mirrors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 22:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The articles were actually based on third-party sources published. But why can't just respect request by original author. Thanks. - Dragonbite 23:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with those above who question the notability of many of these individuals. I had the same thought as I was reverting the speedy requests. The notability, it seems, is rather a different issue, though, than the question of whether we need "permission" from the UN to have articles about some of its employees. Could they not all go to AfD as a group and let the matter of notability be sorted out there? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works Rodsan18. We don't need to ask permission from the UN to talk abotu a subject in Wikipedia. It's not our duty to contact you; it's the UN's duty to contact the foundation if there is a complaint. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

While true, I don't find that relevant. The {{db-author}} is a valid speedy deletion criteria. From the couple of articles I have looked at, he's been the only contributor (cats, linking, & formating are not substantive edits). What is the basis for ignoring our speedy deletion policy and keeping the ones that no one else has contributed towards? -- JLaTondre 23:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Another way of putting it is that this seems to be primarily an issue between the U.N. and its employee(s). There doesn't seem to be any outright gross violation of WP policy with the articles, so an appropriate judgment of what's best for the encyclopedia needs to occur. That said, both lack of notability needs to be given due weight and the db-self request ought to be a robust tie-breaker in favor of deletion. If they're truly notable, someone will add them back. Studerby 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

CSD G7 is a criteria for when administrators may delete things immediately. It is not a criteria for when they must do so, absent other considerations. This issue came up in respect of another user very recently. Sam Blacketer 23:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please just respect deletion request: CSD 7:Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. - Dragonbite 23:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A deletion request is not the same as a deletion order. It is perfectly legitimate for an administrator to decline to delete an article even if it meets several speedy deletion criteria. Sam Blacketer 23:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It may not be an order but it still needs to be respected nonetheless? - Dragonbite 00:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Other editors who want to look over the articles should see User:Rodsan18#United_Nations-related_subjects. This is the set of 35 articles that are listed there as being related to the UN. My view is that a number have notability, and others don't. Perhaps this might be acknowledged by setting up a group AfD for the ones that lack notability? Once the articles have been created, copyright has been released and there is no reason to go back. It's only a question of notability. EdJohnston 00:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the position you're in, please understand that we're trying to figure out what is and is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. If the articles that you submitted are notable and appropriate, we can't just go around deleting them all willy-nilly. If they're not notable, then we sure as heck need to get them out. The issue between you and your employer is not something within which we care to be involved, probably. As Studerby said above, we're trying to make a judgment upon what's best for the encyclopedia. In my case, I'm leaning toward speedy-delete on the ones that don't assert notability and AFD for those which are of questionable notability. My guess is that most of them will end up deleted. - Philippe | Talk 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A group AfD is exactly the suggestion I made above. I think it is the best way to put this issue to rest. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? I think Wikipedia should be sensitive to security problems; may I suggest office action? The Evil Spartan 00:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where the notion of "security problems" comes from, to be honest. I'd agree with RepublicanJacobite here - group AfD for the apparently non-notable entries. Or for all the entries; let the WP community decide what's notable in WP terms. I'm not sure that {{db-blanked}} appies in all cases either. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This has never occurred to me before, but surely the very idea of CSD: 7 violates WP:OWN, since, the moment they hit save, the article becomes free to all, and surely by existence of CSD 7, except when mistakes are made in the name(even though a re-direct is more appropriate), they are breaking WP:Own, by assuming they are within their rights to have a page deleted because they want it to be--Jac16888 01:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the deleted content is still available to admins, and complies with GFDL. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to delete anything. Everything ever published is still recoverable, unless it has been oversighted. If there are no other significant contributors, and the deletion would not harm the encyclopedia, I see no problem with honoring the author's CSD request. If someone else feels strongly about a specific article, they can request a restore, and work on it. Dean Wormer 02:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I will argue against that idea. When one nominates a page for speedy deletion, they're still leaving it up to others (and/or the deciding admin) whether or not the deletion notice stands, or if the article gets deleted. The original creator can place a hangon notice, or another editor can merely remove it. --健次(derumi)^talk 01:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I note belatedly we're discussing G7, not A7. Still, some other editor or admin could remove the tag if they feel the article should stay. --健次(derumi)^talk 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My own view, and I should stress this is merely an opinion not a decree of any kind, is that these are borderline notable people at best (and probably not), that the articles were created in good faith under circumstances that nevertheless give rise to conflict-of-interest questions, and that the original creator is making a good faith request now. I see no special reason not to honor that request. I would be very concerned if we get into some kind of weird "gotcha" mode where someone has created an article that perhaps should not exist, and only decide to keep it because they want it deleted. If any of the individuals are of any super special notability, I am sure someone else could create a brand new article from scratch.--Jimbo Wales 10:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have been bold and deleted all the articles that IMO qualified for deletion as non-notable biographies. The following biographies remain;
  • Jeffrey Tao
  • Alberto Reyes
  • Elisabeth Heyward
  • Pavel Palazhchenko
  • Igor Korchilov
  • Jean Herbert

and the following non-biographies.

• • United Nations Interpretation Service
  • United Nations Art Collection

Some consensus to what should happen with these is now required. ELIMINATORJR 11:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Were this an AfD I'd be saying "delete" to all but the two non-biographical articles, for what it's worth. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly; some are borderline. Reyes probably passes WP:MUSIC, whilst the Russians may be notable for their books. ELIMINATORJR 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the last two (Igor Korchilov and Jean Herbert) to be informative articles about notable people. There shouldn't be any security issues about Herbert, as he is dead. The non-bio articles are notable and interesting. If they are all the work of User:Rodsan18 (and they do seem to be), then an off-wiki discussion to sort out exactly what can and can't be kept should sort things out. I suspect the problem is with material added that might not be available from public sources (eg. lists of interpreters). Such material should be oversighted. See the article history of United Nations Interpretation Service. Any material that is sourced to publically available sources should be kept. One possible solution, to disassociate Rodsan18 from the material, is for a cut and paste copy of the article to be made in his userspace (minus any non-public information and any extra edits from other people), for the original article history to be deleted, for Rodsan18 to release the edited copy in his userspace into the public domain, and for another user to restart the article using that material, with an edit summary like "using author-released public domain copy of edited version of previous article that was deleted". Does that work? Carcharoth 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BigGabriel555‎

I was dealing with user BigGabriel555‎ and his violations of multiple Wikipedia policies. I previosuly made a report to AN/I [44] and was told to (1) bring this issue up with him (which I have) 2) explain the significance of the photo (which I have on the page) [45] . After he kept reverting, I started giving him many warnings. [46] . Which he chose to ignore and continue reverting edits. As previously stated User has been changing the article around. Which is not a problem. He does utlize WikiOwn as is demonstrated here [47] Has removed a photo from an article with no valid reason [48] [49] [50] [51] Removes tags [52] and has ignored requests to discuss [53] UnclePaco 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because you aren't putting any kind of caption on the picture, so no-one can tell what it is and why it's significant to the article. If you think it's necessary to the article, you should add it in the format [[Image:PICTURENAME.jpg|thumb|right|CAPTION SAYING WHAT THE PICTURE'S OF]]. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What a rather lame edit war. The photograph (taken, incidentally, by UnclePaco) is being inserted onto the page without any caption to suggest what it is, and supported only by a single sentence ("New York is one of the places where many Dominican's (sic) emigrate to.") which doesn't really need to be there at all because it's sourced in the previous paragraph. Personally, I'd leave it out. But this is a pointless revert war; neither editor has technically broken 3RR, but repeated edit-warring after warnings is actionable, so I suggest stopping this right now. ELIMINATORJR 22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I followed Iridescents advice and placed in a caption and an improved rationale behind it. Iridescent than fixed the sizing. BigGabrial simply deleted it once again. He doesn't even reply to why he is removing the photo. He has done this with multiple other edits. [54] UnclePaco 04:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Again after repeated warnings as well as asking him why he's removing the photo. I have followed all advice given to me. [55] UnclePaco 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jeeny

This user is currently on what can only be described as a unnecessary rant. I was "wiki-friends" with this user in the past, but now am reporting her here. User would like to leave Wikipedia. She has left vulgarity on my user talk page, as well as the admin Phil Sandifer. She is clearly trying to get blocked (based on edit summary she left here. User should be blocked and her page be deleted (at her request; she already tagged it for speedy). I am concerned that this user may continue to vandalize/act uncivily Wikipedia unless she is blocked. - Rjd0060 02:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In the time it took me to write this report, her User page has been deleted. I am not sure if anything else needs to be done from here, as far as her vandalism and vulgar edit summaries. - Rjd0060 02:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

She hasn't edited in an hour. I don't think a block is necessary at this point, but I will block her if she makes further disruptive edits. Picaroon (t) 02:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

All I wanted to do was point out this erratic behavior and WP:AIV directed me here. I see that this page says I should notify her of this report, should I do that even though her user page has been deleted and her user talk page has a "RETIRED" tag on it? - Rjd0060 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

She socked in order to use profanity: [56], and was open about it. Even if she's trying her best to get blocked, maybe we should oblige. The Evil Spartan 02:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No it was not really a sock, per se. Same IP though, as she is my caretaker/nurse. And logged in while I had left the room. I had logged out, and she logged in, and I thought I was still logged out. Truth. But, I understand if I am not believed as there are so many liars on Wikipedia. Jeeny 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite dramatic. She should go on a week long Caribbean cruise with ScottAHudson. Dean Wormer 02:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

She may continue to vandalizeact uncivily as she is clearly waiting to get blocked/banned (as evident from a number of edit summaries including this one. - Rjd0060 02:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe she could find Dexter in the Bahamas. [57] Funkynusayri 02:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's probably inappropriate. Dean Wormer 02:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely inappropriate trolling. ThuranX 14:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Whew, take it easy, boyos. Funkynusayri 14:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want us to 'take it easy', then avoid pouring fuel on fires. ThuranX 02:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Igor "the Otter"'s anti-Semitism

I consider [58] this a gross violation of AGF and CIV; Igor the otter is resorting to anti-Semitic attacks to push his point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the only case he's done that? Use "subst:uw-agf3". Rlevse 12:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No Igor was "discouraged" from editing the Holocaust Denial article by JP Gordon. I think that Igor is basically a troll. Have a look at that talk page. He has been warned and blocked by ad min before.: Albion moonlight 12:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

See this in reference to Albion's comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

FFS, people, this is obviously a troll. He's not here to contribute productively, he's only here to push his ridiculous POV (Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, fringecruft in general). Look at his contribs, old revisions of his userpage, his talk page. We have no place for such types: blocked indef. Moreschi ^Talk 18:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly concur in the block. There's no place for stuff like that in civilized discourse, including Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Only problem with this block is that it was overdue. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. Why the holy feck was he not blocked earlier? I have more compunction about blocking PENIS vandalism, this is ridiculous. Moreschi ^Talk 19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Because an admin would've come along and disagreed with the block on grounds that "he's just being ganged up on for holding an unpopular viewpoint", or "why not try 12 escalating blocks before indef?", or "he just needs mentorship (which I personally am not interested in providing) rather than a block"? Or perhaps it's just because Guy isn't here anymore. My, I am feeling cynical today. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cynicism being an excellent cure for naivety, another of Wikipedia's problems. Moreschi ^Talk 21:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. He was a shitty little Nazi asshole without redeeming useful edits. --Stephan Schulz 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Even I feel like agreeing with this block, mostly on the grounds that he came here intending to solely edit in favor of an antisemitic POV. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Contributions seem limited to undoing people's work and promoting holocaust denial on talk pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur; block overdue and endorsed. -- Avi 01:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:FourthAve

FourthAve (talk · contribs) was banned for one year following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve. The ban term was reset a couple of times for socking and expired earlier this month. This morning, FourthAve returned to Wikipedia and immediately resumed the activity for which he was banned, posting to the talkpages of a former administrator who opposed him in the arbitration case as well as the arbitration clerk who closed it, with posts including personal attacks, harassment, and a legal threat. As a result, FourthAve has been blocked indefinitely.

The arbitration decision provides that upon return from the ban, "FourthAve is indefinitely placed on general probation. For good cause he may be banned from Wikipedia by any three administrators. Bans made under this remedy are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve#Log of blocks and bans." Pursuant to the decision and FourthAve's conduct in deliberately resuming his misconduct immediately upon his return, I request that three administrators endorse a ban on this user. Newyorkbrad 17:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"you dimisssed it as only a dictatorial drag queen L. Ron Hubbardite Steward would. Any failure of any Wikpipedian to advance $cientology is a banable offense, particulary when the drag queen, Ron Hubbardite YOU is exercised about his/her view of truth (yes, you like to be called Brenda). Ban me again. I may sue you in Florida."

Ya, endorse ban, legal threats, violation of parole. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. This isn't the behaviour of someone who wants to build an encyclopaedia. We can manage without them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And I will be the third. Posting to the arbitration page. Newyorkbrad 17:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse (EC). Completely unacceptable behavior.--Kubigula (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely endorse a ban. ELIMINATORJR 17:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse a ban. —[[Animum | talk]] 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse (I've never been to Florida). LessHeard vanU 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He definitely needs to get his ethics in. (Someone had to say that. :) -- llywrch 23:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RedSpruce...again

RedSpruce has apparently grown weary of forum shopping. After two ANI reports, a deleted RfC, discussion on his talk page, my talk page, and the WP:EL talk page he has decided that everyone else is wrong and he will continue adding links anyway. I have explained policy to him as well as (Calton, FisherQueen, Merope but he seems to think the policies don't apply when he doesn't feel like it. Can someone else explain this to him? IrishGuy ^talk 01:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think his whole plan is to contravene policy in the hopes that I will block him...then he can claim admin abuse. He already attempted to claim: Since Irishguy has the power to block me, this is an admin abuse which is ridiculous. You can see where he alludes to this again here. Mind, he claims he will stop is another admin tells him to...and as noted above that has already happened. IrishGuy ^talk 01:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely invite anyone to explain this policy to me (whichever one Irishguy is saying applies at the moment). Irishguy refused to continue the discussion with me once it became obvious that he had no argumentative leg to stand on. Instead he prefers to edit war. [59] RedSpruce 02:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this: You're linking to a blog. 99 out of 100 times, that's a guaranteed no-no. The use of blogs is very restrictive for good reason; as a rule of thumb, they're unreliable. It is thoroughly incumbent upon the editor seeking to add such a link that it is inherently valid and valuable to the article to which the editor seeks to add it. Positive blog examples include two MySpace examples: Tim Story, director of Fantastic Four 2, and Jon Favreau, director of Iron Man, both have had their myspace pages cited in the pages of the relevant film articles, where their direct quotes are sourced, or wherein they discuss progress on the film. Those are certainly far more valid, and were reviewed at the time on the talk pages and with talks with admins, about having those particular MySpaces moved to the whitepage, because relative to those two films, they are/were notable. Simply linking to a blog about films in general, as you seem intent on doing, is unacceptable. Had you sought to add some particularly insightful commentary found in a given entry, to the relevant fim, a reasonable case could be presented on the talk page, consensus to include be developed, and then an admin found to whitelist it. Heck, you could've even presented a good argument to an admin, and skipped the talk page int he interest of being BOLD, then brought it to the article, where talk page might discuss removing it, but you'd have still followed a reasonable procedure. It appears you've done none of the above. Instead, you continue to insist it's a good link, and edit war. IG shouldn't be edit warring, but neither should you, and given that he brought it here, he clearly won't be blocking you per COI citations you and others would invoke (fairly). Someone else, however should block you, or at least give you a final warning. In fact, Let's go on record. As an otherwise uninvolved, uninterested editor of Wikipedia, This is a final warning, "Knock It Off." ThuranX 03:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, I'm afraid you haven't looked into the situation you're commenting on. I am not "linking to a blog about films in general"; what's under discussion are links to articles by noted film noir authorities. And in any case, as CBD notes below, the WP:EL policy page doesn't support anything like the policy toward blogs that you describe. In sum, since my edits are entirely in keeping with WP policies here, I'm not clear on what it is I'm supposed to "knock off." I ask that you either clarify your ultimatum or withdraw it. Thanks. RedSpruce 10:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins may not use their extra buttons to 'win' a content dispute. Citing WP:EL doesn't stop this from being a content dispute because that is a guideline, and indeed says only that we should generally not include;

• "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." (emphasis mine)

Eddie Muller apparently is a 'recognized authority' on the subject, and thus RedSpruce has a reasonable basis for his belief that the link is appropriate. Which is also supported by what WP:EL says about links which can and should be added;

• "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
• "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

He's got a reasonable case. There is no COI here. This is a good user with a long contribution history and empty block log. It's a content dispute. Follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Stop edit warring. Stop threatening admin action on a content dispute. Discuss the actual issues. Why is this link less worthy than the other four included on The Big Heat? Does it really contain anything which can't be gleaned from the article and/or those other sites? --CBD 08:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the blog he wants to link to consists of reprints of copyrighted work, why should he cite the blog and not the original printing of the works in question? -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because there's no reason not to (that I've been informed of), and because the online versions are freely available online. A great many online resources are also available in print; I haven't seen that cited as a reason to avoid linking to the online versions. RedSpruce 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

'Cited references' and 'external links' are fundamentally different things. A citation can be made to any kind of source (print, online, television, radio, et cetera) for the purpose of providing verification for some fact(s) in the article. External links on the other hand are only to online sources and for the purpose of providing additional information not found in the article. Listing an 'External link' to a book obviously doesn't make sense... it's not a link. Some pages include books and other print media as 'general sources' (rather than inline on particular facts) in the 'References' section, but it isn't common and again is intended as verification of the text IN the article rather than something like a 'bibliography' section for further reading on the subject. The only 'bibliography' equivalent commonly used on Wikipedia is 'External Links'. --CBD 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Jewish Bolshevism

I've been told by ban editor "never again" to do the editing I've done. It sounds threatening to me. The above expression is Antisemitic, I've traced it to Hitler and Nazism. But I believe the editor, Mikkai (or something like that) wishes to keep his Antisemitic version (against scholarly sources) and seem to be threatening me. Also, I do not with to engage in an editors war with him. Please advise what to do. Thanks. --Ludvikus 05:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, first of all, Only lovers of Alfred Rosenberg would do such things is essentially accusing many different Wikipedia editors of Nazi-loving. The proper response to such accusations is a violation of WP:NPA, so I will not make it or suggest anyone do so. Secondly, you already have gotten into an edit war by reverting a reversion. Talk first, revert later, if at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Here is a good candidate for WP:LAME. What is the point of this move war? EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 05:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not all that lame. The original article is about the expression and the particular conspiracy theory. Ludvikus objects to the article about the expression and wants to change it to an article about a particular obscure Jew-hating pamphlet. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Right, but how does moving the article about the expression solve that issue? Mikkalai is move warring together with Ludvikus but he has a point when he tells Ludvikus to create a seperate article about the pamphlet rather than move the other article. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 06:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Some of the participants have asked other editors, myself included, to help on the topic. Talk:Belarus#White_Russian_vs._White_movement for reference. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
        • They now have two identical articles except for the lead so I suppose that's one way of stopping a move war. They also have a merge debate going on so this seems beyond what ANI needs to get involved in now, especially since ANI does not resolve content disputes. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 19:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please issue warning to user:EditorEsquire re: ownership, NPV and removal of sourced quotes and statistics

. - Brickexistab and 2 other socks blocked indef and EditorEsquire has 24 hours for the 3rr. I semiprotected the article for a week. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Loyola Law School wikipedia, we're trying to:

1. Add a quote from the school's Dean. The quote is from a WSJ article. He removed the quote, explaining "Deleted alleged career prospects quote from dean; Bootstrapped from prohibited Loyola 2L discussion, built on bias, and independently fails wiki policies for same reasons." I have no idea what he's talking about. The quote is directly copied from a WSJ article. [60]

2. He is removing comparative career statistics, which have been on the page for months. [61] (Link from three months ago with these statistics [62]). These statistics help us to understand Loyola's career placement statistics. A statistic on its own isn't very helpful, so we found and added the same statistics for Loyola's local competitors.

Another user again tried to delete them, accusing us of picking cherry picked schools to make Loyola look bad. In fact, these are the only other ABA law schools in LA. We're picking schools from Loyola's market (Los Angeles.) A few users are turning the page into a Loyola ad, and preventing any objective description of the school from being presented. --Brickexistab 18:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

All in all, editoresquire seems to think he owns the page, and that it's a marketing tool for his law school. This has gone on for a week now. Please warn him.--Brickexistab 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He's doing it again [63] and again. [64]--Brickexistab 18:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He did it again. [65] This is now four times in 24 hours and I reported him to 3RR.[66] Please issue him a warning or further discipline as appropriate. --Brickexistab 18:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

See also: related archived discussion --Onorem♠Dil 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That was about the Loyola 2L controversy. This is about adding a sourced quote from the dean, and preventing the deletion of statistics. --Brickexistab 18:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize it's not about the exact same issue, but it is the same editor and the same article, so I thought it still might be worth linking to. --Onorem♠Dil 18:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Update. Editoresquire posted a response on his talk page, which he forgot to link here. [67] He seems to think that by adding these statistics, and the quote, we are engaging in a conspiracy to denigrate Loyola Law School. Keep in mind these are statistics from U.S. News & World Report and a quote from the school's own dean. I think he needs a reminder re: ownership of articles. --Brickexistab 18:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New user following in tracks of banned user, and leaving pleasant edit summary

User:WhatThisIs has started to edit the same type of articles as banned User:Daddy Kindsoul [68], and left this rather [69] pleasant edit summary on one such article. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've filed an RFCU for him, even though I think it's bleeding obvious. -- Merope 17:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at 4 of the user's edits. They seem reasonable and are not vandalism. Therefore, shouldn't we AGF. Using the excuse of "this is the same person as a banned user" is lack of WP:AGF. My guess is that many of the contributers of this article are from Rome. If there is more or specific diffs that are troublesome, then that's a different issue.

Furthermore, the above complaint says "has started to edit the same type of articles". Quite a few people edit the same type of articles, be it sport, botany, history, etc.Mrs.EasterBunny 18:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the complaint may not be very clear, but four edits by only one user is hardly enough evidence to draw any conclusion. The editor has made edits to the same article that Daddy Kindsoul was involved in editing, and, furthermore, made the same edits to the article. The editor also has the same habit of calling any removal of his text "vandalism", and shows the same degree of civility that Daddy Kindsoul exhibited, as evidenced by his edit to the United Roma Crowd Trouble image (which, naturally, Daddy Kindsoul uploaded). I think a checkuser is a logical next step. We're not required to assume good faith when there's clear evidence to the contrary. -- Merope 18:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It was actually more the nice edit summary they left, which I link to above, which I think hardly complies with WP:CIV. I brought it here because of that diff, as I didn't feel comfortable taking it to checkuser, though I to have my doubts. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the RFCU turns up +, I'll tell Mr.EasterBunny not to leave any eggs there next year.Mrs.EasterBunny 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potentionally libeous information being added to Martha Hart article by range of IP's

• 206.40.96.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 206.40.96.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 206.40.96.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 206.40.96.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 206.40.96.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 206.40.96.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Can somebody block all IP's in this range? They have been added potentionally libeous information into the Martha Hart article, see [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]. Can someone block IP's in this range please? Thanks, Davnel03 17:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• 206.40.96.0/24 blocked 24 hours. Mr.Z-man 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that this appears to be a dynamic IP targeting a single article, I think semi-protection of the target article is the best approach rather than a range block. I've therefore temporarily semi-protected Martha Hart. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits from Banned Sockpuppets

What do you do with edits from a banned sockpuppet? Even on talk pages?

This user, User:HarveyCarter, just talks trash in all of his edits, from no less than 26 sockpuppet accounts.

I propose to revert every single contribution he has made due to the track record of his edits. They are made just to make controversy, stir the poop, are insulting, vulgar at times, etc. His track record makes it clear that he does not care to make Wikipedia a valuable resource and promote Wikipedia in a positive manner or light. When we have sockpuppets such as him, I want to AUTOMATICLLY revert all edits regardless of content or whether they are on talk pages or not. Because of the way that they have seen fit to conduct them self, I want no readily available evidence that they were here. Thanks.

IP4240207xx 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BAN... you are allowed to revert all of a banned editors edits made while they were banned, though generally I'd suggest you don't revert edits to other users' talkpages but rather just inform them of the banned status of the editor and let them deal with it as they will.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rogue Gremlin Violation -- Sockpuppetry

According to Wikipedia rules, in cases of accusations of sock puppetry, the suspected Sockmaster must leave notice on his talk page for at least ten days. Rogue Gremlin removed the notice within 23 minutes. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARogue_Gremlin&diff=161597563&oldid=161592414 JerryGraf 19:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Rogue Gremlin (talk · contribs) does have the right to remove content or blank his/her userspace. nat^tang 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see this for more information about userspaces. nat^tang 20:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RS1900 personal attacks and threats

User:RS1900 has made personal attacks and threats against me since I reported him as a suspected sockpuppeteer of User:Jai Raj K. The personal attacks include calling me a "piece of crap" and a "loser in real life." On his talk page, he calls me a liar and a blackmailer, and threatens that "Your days are numbered." [76] The threats also include saying that he "will not leave" me, which sounds like intent to wikistalk. He also tells me to be "ready for some firework" (sic), whatever that means. At the page for the sockpuppet case, he again calls me a liar, and falsely accuses me of blackmailing him and making legal threats. [77] Nick Graves 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RS1900 (talk · contribs) has been warned. If he acts disruptively again, I would fully support a block of RS1900 (talk · contribs). nat^tang 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pgsylv

User:Pgsylv has repeatedly demonstrated an attempt to impress a political agenda on Wikipedia (specifically, Quebecois Nationalism/Sovereignism - see Talk:Quebec). I do not know if this user has broken Wikipedia edit policies extensively (although he has been in an edit war regarding the status of nationhood of Quebec), therefore I am not recommending blocking/banning. I am recommending a review of this user (if possible) to determine how he can be stopped from continuing his agenda. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 20:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Left a note on his/her talk page; we'll see if anything changes. Other input welcome. MastCell ^Talk 23:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility problems on Talk:Frida Kahlo

Against my will, I find myself involved in discussion on this page. Since I am involved, could another admin review the contributions of 70.18.5.219 in this discussion, and offer some advice on when incivility becomes something that should be halted with a short block? -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serial vandal but infrequent

71.234.159.116 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) seems to drop in every week or ten days to do a little vandalism. They are up to final warning status as of Sept 27 I think but just did another run. Pig^man 01:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly the same guy every time. Blocked for a month. Raymond Arritt 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And tagged. -- Avi 06:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fidel Castro

User blocked; Pages move protected. Real96

Someone moved it. Please revert. --Agüeybaná 02:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: the user was indef blocked. --Agüeybaná 02:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection for Wendy's article (and KFC also)

Hi,

The Wendy's article just came off protection and the person who had vandalized it for weeks before the last protection has started again with his fictional country (long and very stupid story). This user, who is going through various IP addresses, also did this same type of vandalism on the Kentucky Fried Chicken article. could we please put both if these articles back on protection so the editors that regularly patrol these articles do not have to keep erasing this guys constant moronic vandalism?

I really would like the protection to be permanent as fast food articles in generally are fodder for vandalism.

Thanks,

Jeremy (Jerem43 05:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

N Declined. I can't see much recent persistent vandalism warranting (semi-)protection. Next time, please go to WP:RPP. Sandstein 05:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, I will go there instead. - Jeremy (Jerem43 06:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Edit warring, incivility, possible 3RR at Korean cuisine

Given my involvement through seemingly failed attempts to mediate and advise editors on policy, I'll recuse myself from taking action on the page and editors on this one. A quick summary of events:

• melonbarmonster (talk · contribs) and Badagnani (talk · contribs) really aren't getting along. There is constant bickering, edit warring and now melonbarmonster has really, imo, gone too far with several recent instances of trolling on Talk:Korean cuisine and reporting at 3RR for things of which he is equally, if not more guilty. Without going into too much detail about editing history, let's just say that both editors are well versed in why their actions are controversial. A few other editors are involved to varying degrees, with some choosing to ignore WP:V and others finding out how difficult the task of mediation is here. Were I uninvolved, I would block melonbarmonster 3 ~ 24h for the trolling, investigate the 3RR report against Badagnani and fully protect the article for at least a few days. Deiz talk 06:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block Review - Netmonger (talk · contribs)

I've blocked User:Netmonger for 24 hours for his recent harassment of User:Wiki Raja, culminating in an extremely harassing and vulgar email sent to Wiki Raja (I will forward a copy to any admin who requests it). Mr.Z-man 23:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Request forwarding, please. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

To first go over what happened, Wiki Raja engaged in extensive vote canvassing related to a straw poll at Template_talk:Sri Lankan Conflict. An editor then posted a comment at the straw poll indicating he was canvassed by Wikiraja.[78] Wikiraja subsequently moved the editor's comment from a subsection of it's own, to a much less prominent position hidden among other discussions.[79] I reverted his edit, and he reverted back. I reverted again, and posted the {{uw-tpv2}} warning on his talk page not to edit other user's comments. Wiki Raja removed the warning with the edit summery "rm. vandalism", [80] but heeded the warning and stopped moving the other editor's comment on the talk page.

After that, from what I can see, User:Netmonger undid Wiki Raja's edit 2 times, adding back my original warning, and even posted on WP:AIV that Wiki Raja was removing the warning on his talk page.[81] When he was advised by an an admin that Wiki Raja could remove the warning from the talk page and he shouldn't add it back again again, he replied "I agree with what you said on my talk page".[82] From what I can see that indicates he didn't know user's could remove warning from their own talk pages, and when told by the admin that they could, he listened to that and stopped adding it back.

In the meantime, Wiki Raja added a message on Netmonger's talk page[83]

This will be my first and last time that I warn you to stop posting on my talk page.

I admit I have no idea about this email you talk of, but would you mind explaining how you got to know about it and if you are certain it is genuine? I'm not sure what email address was used, but for the record, the email Netmonger once sent me was from his personal email address (a Gmail address), not something like "netmonger@gamil.com" or "netmonger@yahoo.com" or a similar address. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything Netmonger did that I would consider harassment. He did revert talk page warnings until he was told that it was ok for WikiRaja to remove them, but I can't imagine that deserves a block. Could you forward that email over to me as well please? Shell ^babelfish 00:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Removing warning on your own talk page is exempt from 3RR and Vandalism. I looked at what was forwarded to me and... There are somethings odd about it. Based on what I was forwarded, Netmonger knew Wiki Raja's email before this incident... or did he? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wiki Raja does have "email this user" enabled, he would not need the email address. If you are referring to the header, I believe that was automatically done by MS OutlookGmail when it was forwarded to me. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC) (modified 01:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

Are you certain the email was from Netmonger, and it was not forged? Anyone can duplicate text based email headers. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't be absolutely certain, but I have no reason to assume that bad of faith on Wiki Raja's part. (And the header includes HTML, not just plain text). Mr.Z-man 01:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As Shell said, and I agree, I don't think his edits could be considered as harassment, let alone warrant blocking. As for the email, there obviously was bad blood between the users, and the threat by Wiki Raja was extremely uncivil, and, in my opinion, more than enough reason in-itself not to automatically "assume good faith" on the part of Wiki Raja

This will be my first and last time that I warn you to stop posting on my talk page.

It was followed by Netmonger posting this

The joke you added to User_talk:Netmonger is getting old. Humor is great sometimes, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions.

on Wiki Raja's talk page. You have to question whether Netmonger's violation of the "last warning" resulted in this Joe Job punishment?

Also HTML can easily be duplicated. As long as the email was text based, I don't see how you can use it as evidence. If it was sent to you in the form as an attachment, I believe that would be harder to fake, although I think it's best if we get an opinion on that from a more technically proficient admin --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 02:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked Wiki Raja to send me the header info from the original email:

Delivered-To: wikiraja@gmail.com
Received: by 10.142.162.20 with SMTP id k20cs37375wfe;
        Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:09:40 -0700 (PDT)

Received: by 10.70.76.13 with SMTP id y13mr7388353wxa.1191146979295;
        Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <wiki@wikimedia.org
>
Received: from wiki-mail.wikimedia.org (wiki-mail.wikimedia.org [66.230.200.216])

        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h34si11144474wxd.2007.09.30.03.09.38;
        Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com
: best guess record for domain of wiki@wikimedia.org designates 66.230.200.216 as permitted sender) client-ip=
66.230.200.216;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass smtp.mail=wiki@wikimedia.org
Received: from vincent.pmtpa.wmnet
 ([10.0.0.17]:57070 helo=localhost.localdomain)
        by mchenry.wikimedia.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
        (envelope-from <
wiki@wikimedia.org>)
        id 1Ibvk2-0007Kp-K8
        for wikiraja@gmail.com; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 +0000
Received: from localhost.localdomain (vincent [
127.0.0.1])
        by localhost.localdomain (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l8UA9c0a026094
        for <wikiraja@gmail.com>; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 GMT
Received: (from apache@localhost
)
        by localhost.localdomain (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id l8UA9cco026093;
        Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 GMT
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 GMT
Message-Id: <
200709301009.l8UA9cco026093@localhost.localdomain>
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: apache set sender to wiki@wikimedia.org using -f
To: Wiki Raja <
wikiraja@gmail.com>
Subject: Have you considered?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
From: Netmonger <
netmongers@gmail.com>

This shows it was either sent by Netmonger through Wikipedia's email feature or Wiki Raja is going to significant lengths to get a short block (which I shortened to 12 hours per concerns her) on Netmonger. Mr.Z-man 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for going through all the trouble answering the questions Z-man, I just want to make sure a user wasn't wrongfully blocked here. Did you notice that the email address is netmongers@gmail.com (note the s), and do you know for certain that User:Netmonger uses the email netmongers@gmail.com? Is there a way for admins to verify that? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 03:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As a test, I tried creating an account for "netmonger@gmail.com" (No "s"). The account was already registered so it is possible that it's a impersonator. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 05:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but is Netmonger contesting his/her block, or claiming that s/he didn't send the email? Natalie 13:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

D_arkF_alls, multiple accounts can be registered with the same email address set. But in order to send email the new 'imposter' account would have to be confirmed using access to the real email address. --Gmaxwell 18:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly support unblocking as soon as possible. This looks like someone created a throwaway account in order to implicate Netmonger; unless this editor suddenly lost all ability to use grammar, spelling and capitalization, its a pretty obvious troll. Shell ^babelfish 14:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this was done by mistake, shall we made a comment on his block log saying that it was a mistake? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that User:Netmonger has a confirmed email address of "netmongers@gmail.com". Barring some unlikely yet unknown software glitch there is no way to get MW to send out messages from an email address without confirming from that email address. This doesn't mean that Netmonger is the author of the above email: The copy here could be a fabrication, netmonger's (wikipedia or email) account could have been compromised, or netmonger could have been foolish enough to help someone else complete the confirm process on his mailing address. I'd normally regard all of these as unlikely, but those of you who have looked into this will be in a better position to say how likely those alternatives are. --Gmaxwell 18:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miranda Grell and related pages

On 13 Sep 2007, I created Miranda Grell, who is a Labour local government councillor who has been convicted of spreading false allegations in her election campaign that her gay Liberal Democrat opponent was a paedophile. She was, notably, the first person to be convicted of such an offense under the Representation of the People Act 1983.

On 22 Sep, I edited the Bermondsey by-election, 1983 article, adding a link to Miranda Grell in the "See Also" section. The Bermondsey by-election is famous for the homophobic campaigning against the Labour candidate, Peter Tatchell, by an independent Labour candidate and, allegedly, the Liberal party (a predecessor to the Liberal Democrats). I felt that the Miranda Grell case was similar in that this was another scandal involving the sexuality of a candidate in a London election. Similar cases are sometimes listed in "See Also" sections.

On 23 Sep, Fys reverted my edit to the by-election page with the comment "you must be joking, she's got nothing to do with it".[84] I re-reverted with the comment "It's another case of homphobic political campaigning; "see also" is often used for comparable cases". Fys re-re-reverted with "rv, don't be so stupid, it's not remotely comparable".[85] I then took the matter to the Talk page in order to seek a wider consensus. I proposed the change there and sought further opinions. Neither Fys or anyone else has commented there. I am minded to drop the matter.

Immediately after his/her first revert, Fys nominated the Miranda Grell page for deletion,[86] ending the nomination with the comment "Also, probably created as a POV campaign by a political opponent." Four people (myself, Nedrutland and two others) have responded to the AfD, all arguing to keep. The AfD was subsequently closed and the article kept.

On 24 Sep, Fys created a page for Maurice Burgess. Burgess is a former Liberal Democrat councillor who was convicted of paedophilia (indecently assaulting an underage boy, some years before being elected). Fys then edited the Miranda Grell page, adding a "See Also" section linking to Maurice Burgess with no explanation for the edit beyond "see also".[87] Nedrutland subsequently put further work into the Burgess page, including correcting at least one important issue (Fys had said Burgess was jailed for an earlier offence when he was actually given a suspended sentence),[88] but removed the link on the Miranda Grell page. Nedrutland discussed the change on the Talk page, arguing that Burgess "was not convicted while a councillor, the conviction did not lead to him losing his seat legally (as Grell's will - if she does not appeal successfully) and his offence was not electoral and predated his election". (I should note that Burgess was, however, charged while a councillor.)

On 26 Sep, I posted to Fys' Talk page, pointing out the discussions on Talk:Bermondsey by-election, 1983 and Talk:Miranda Grell.[89] Fys has not made any more edits on Miranda Grell or Maurice Burgess, nor entered into any discussion on their Talk pages.

I wish to raise a number of concerns. First, I feel Fys is ignoring WP:AGF in making comments like "don't be so stupid" and "probably created as a POV campaign by a political opponent." But more than that I have come to the view that the pattern of Fys' edits constitute tendentious editing for the purposes of political campaigning: in trying to delete an article embarrassing to Labour (Miranda Grell, AfD unanimously rejected), creating an article embarrassing to the Liberal Democrats (Maurice Burgess) and linking to that article. In particular, I note that Fys has avoided the many opportunities to enter into discussion on these matters, including twice not entering into a Talk page discussion about contentious edits (on Bermondsey by-election, 1983 and on Miranda Grell). Fys' past behaviour should not be held against him, but there does seem to be a consistent pattern of behaviour.

What concerns me most is the WP:BLP context and the link to Maurice Burgess on Miranda Grell's page. Grell was found guilty of spreading the allegation that her gay Liberal Democrat opponent was a paedophile. A link to a page about a Liberal Democrat councillor who really was a paedophile is not only inappropriate but could be seen to carry the implication that Grell's allegations are true.

I do not know what to think about the Maurice Burgess article. The reasons Nedrutland gave earlier (for not including a link to Maurice Burgess at Miranda Grell) could equally be used to argue that Burgess is not notable under WP:BIO (bearing in mind WP:NOT#NEWS). I am concerned that the page was written as a kind of attack page. However, the article does give one reliable source, Burgess was (briefly) leader of the council and his crimes were of a serious nature. Should Maurice Burgess go to an AfD? Bondegezou 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fys edited my comments above to remove a paragraph that he felt identified him. I didn't specifically identify Fys, but did make bioraphical comments about Fys that seemed pertinent. I apologise if these were too identifying in their nature. I restore below the paragraph Fys removed, but edited to say less about Fys:

There are some pertinent conflicts of interest here. On 26 Sep, in investigating materials to write this summary, I came to realise the identity of Fys as someone I have encountered online and I presume Fys may have recognized me from my Wikipedia account name. Fys is a Labour party activist. He has been repeatedly blocked by admins in the past for various incidents, including edits of a partisan nature. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom is particularly relevant here, covering edits around Peter Tatchell and resulting in Fys being desysopped. I must also declare that I am a member of the Liberal Democrats.

Bondegezou 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, and not something that admins have any special authority (or ability) to mediate over. Please discuss this at the article talkpage (or each others) until you reach a) consensus, or b)the realisation that there will be no consensus. After that, dispute resolution is thataway... LessHeard vanU 22:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment. I recognise that there are content dispute issues here and have tried to discuss these on the relevant talk pages (as I detailed above). However, to clarify, I raised the matter as I am concerned about the WP:BLP issues (plus WP:ATTACKPAGE, WP:TE, WP:AGF and follow-up to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom), which I understand is the remit of admins. Bondegezou 09:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism from a number of IP addresses against pages edited by Dbachmann (talk · contribs)

Someone from various IP addresses in southern California has been following the edits of Dbachmann (talk · contribs) and either reverting his edits, or blanking sections of the pages. Some of the IP addresses include:

• Jewpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - blocked indef, bad username
• Jewpedia1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - blocked indef, vandal-only account
• TheJewss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - blocked indef, vandal-only account
• 63.16.172.4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 63.16.197.113 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 69.85.144.203 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 206.148.188.35 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (with the taunt, "you guys are so stupid, anyone can drive around these days and connect to any IP range haha")
• 66.81.157.81 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 64.209.150.237 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (with the taunt, "JEW-PEDIA will end soon Hah")
  • 66.81.157.254 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
  • 216.175.101.232 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
  • 75.51.173.60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
  • 75.51.160.183 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
  • 75.51.173.149 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

Pages include:

• Seal (device) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Second Athenian Empire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Kalash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (now sprotected)
• Neo-Hittite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Hippias (tyrant) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Talk:Kurgan hypothesis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (which has been hit pretty heavily, so I protected it)
• Sredny Stog culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • User talk:Into The Fray (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Talk:Macedon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Maryannu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • User talk:Harout72 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Armenia, Subartu and Sumer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There are undoubtedly more articles and IP addresses involved. Dachannien (talk · contribs) has been cleaning up a lot of the mess, which has been a big help, but it might be useful to see if these IPs are zombie proxies or if there's a discernible pattern of vandalism that can be addressed here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Elkman asked me to stop by and give any info I can. The articles listed appear to be recent entries in Dbachmann's contributions list, and the vandal is doing revenge reverts after an editing disagreement. See also User talk:Dbachmann#Action?. There may also be some useful information located in this contrib log, which suggests that the conflict has to do with edits made to the article Mitanni on or around 29 September 2007. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The pattern of stalking is alarming. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We had the same this morning, and the anon claimed he was User:Ararat arev, wanting Dab to give him his phone number. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please block all IPs as open proxies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. All these IPs have been blocked indef as open proxies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

64.209's block log doesn't have any indef on it; just the 24-hour for vandalism. Likewise, 63.16.197.113 doesn't have a proxy indef, just a 3-hour block. Are they not OPs? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we know they're all open proxies? I think I missed the message in this thread that declared them as such. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked a few of these at the time and there was no evidence that they were open proxies. Maybe someone has some evidence to the contrary? Otherwise, please undo your indef-blocks Jossi. Can we also not indef-block even proven open proxies? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I assume that this was the vandal that Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Folantin, some others and I were chasing around in the wee hours of this morning. I've added some more involved IP's (I think C.s.c.w.e.m. may have hardblocked them all) above, just in case. Pages as well. I think that's all of them. Into The Fray ^T/C 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice one IP's listed twice above. and I notice that 75.51.160.83 has a clean blocklog. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. Fixed. Into The Fray ^T/C 20:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was assuming these are all OPs given the message above by Fut.Perf.. If that is not the case, we can simply softblock these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, my numerous typos and duplications aside, there are definitely more IP's. Let me know if you want them, I'll dig them out of my contribs and the pages. Cheers, Into The Fray ^T/C 21:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks to everyone who helped take care of this. --dab (𒁳) 06:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to deal with Vandal-only accounts that are not active

I came across an account that seems to be a vandalism-only account, and even stated as much on their own user page. This account has not been actively vandalizing since I discovered them, though the last occurance was 3 days ago. How would this best be handled? Obviously WP:AIV does not really apply here... Thanks! Arakunem 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's a self-declared vandalism account, and it has indeed vandalized, the answer seems obvious enough. Raymond Arritt 01:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought so too. The account in question is EndlessLight for your review. I came across this account after their page was vandalized... after a quick review of page history and edit history, seems obvious to me. Arakunem 13:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting block review

I'd like to request some more comments about my block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#user:MaplePorter. Marvin Diode is continuing to argue that the evidence is not very strong. I think he's wrong, but a few more comments will settle the issue.

By the way, anyone who cares to watchlist that page and help deal with future issues, your help is welcome. Picaroon (t) 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I just watchlisted this. I don't think you should worry about this. The block as reviewed and upheld and MaplePorter can make further unblock requests if there is anything new to add. Marvin Diode is making very poor strawman arguments and I wouldn't put veyr much credence on them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rich568117

This gentleman is a bit unclear on the concept of vanity pages. He's writing self-promotional bios on himself and his business, he's adding himself to disambiguation pages and rationalizing all the while that if his home-based computer business can't have an article, than neither can Microsoft. Go figure.  :) --PMDrive1061 03:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Another admin deleted all the A7 stuff.--Chaser - T 08:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive flagicons in football/soccer infoboxes

User:Morhveem has added excessive flagicons to the infoboxes of various football/soccer players' articles by tagging all the youth clubs and pro clubs listed in an infobox with flagicons, and in one case (Theo Walcott diff]) removing the nationality flag. He's got 40 some-odd edits, so could an admin auto-rv them all and talk to the user about that? Generally a player's country of origin is where he plays youth soccer, and country is generally discernible by team names or by using wikilinks, which is what they are there for. MSJapan 05:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin-based rollback is usually reserved only for clear vandalism (read the lists). You're correct that the first step is a talk page message, but you don't need someone with sysop tools to do that. Please try yourself first and repost here if you need a page protected, an article deleted, or an editor blocked.--Chaser - T 08:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate image

The image Image:Baconator222.JPG, uploaded by User:Raglios (User talk:Raglios) is inappropriate and isn't used in any articles. I put the image up for speedy deletion (not sure if my category is right though). User was previously warned for uploading an inappropriate image. I suggest the user be blocked at this time. -Bonus Onus 05:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Images deleted, editor warned.--Chaser - T 08:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rickyrab

I would like to report this personal attack/kicking while they are down by a certain User:Rickyrab, who wrote

Methinks you're going to get banned anyway.... (looks for sysops with banhammers) d'oh, where are the banhammers?

—Rickyrab (talk • contribs, 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

[90]

The user already has been warned by an admin that it was totally inappropriate. Don't do that please, however given this users history of making comments like these, I would like a more serious warning to be given to him.Rex 10:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of a history of prior conflict between the two of you, or else I would have given a stronger reaction. Was there one? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I had never even heard of this user, but his talkpage is full of remarks by others on posting childish or abusive comments.In any case, your reaction should have been stronger.Rex 11:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his block log I see that he was involved in the BJANDON dispute (like about what seemed a quarter of wikipedia) and caught a block there, aside from that his log is clean. I've briefly scanned his talkpage, but I can't say I found it "full of remarks by others on posting childish or abusive comments". I think the reaction and gentle warning was appropriate. 84.145.241.203 12:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the comment was meant to be humerous. Maybe WP:AGF here? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying one needs to get banned is humor? It gets hard to assume good faith at some point you know.Rex 14:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil, yes, childish yes, personal attack, no. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How about kicking while down?Rex 14:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Milomedes

While I know a number of admins already read it, on WT:SPOILER User:Milomedes has constantly been prone to not only making personal attacks, but also spouting total nonsense about "public relations" and other things. I wouldn't know where to begin to show everything, especially as the majority of comments are in the archives. This is his most recent edit -- notice comments like there does seem to be a public relations (PR) problem with the name of the "hidable/hidden spoiler tag compromise". Here he uses an edit summery on an /archive page/ to state something (only edit being a blank line addition). Here is an example where he goes into a diatrabe of words that say a lot, but pretty much don't mean anything, as if he's trying to be purposefully confusing to make others cower. Here is an example of his constant talk about 'young users' being somehow discriminated against, as well as the (IMO bizzare) opinion that somehow the word 'warning' is dangerous but that spoiler warnings aren't warnings at all in the first place. In addition, he continues to insist that if WP doesn't have spoiler notices, people won't donate as much (I seem to remember a page that told us that we were not to worry about such issues when creating guidelines and policies, but I can't find it). Here he pretty much dismisses a casual observation study, claiming it's worthless because the person who did it dared to contribute to the excyclopedia (among other reasons). Here's another example of the mention of worrying about some grand boycott of WP and reduced donations, etc. I could go on and keep looking backward, but I think that's enough. Am I the only one who's head spins from most of it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I just found out about this complaint. I want to respond, as it is visible in Google.

First, I want to thank Melodia for highlighting my positive proposals for graphically improving the user interface for spoiler tagging, but I'm puzzled as to its basis for her complaint. Further quote of my post:

.... I suggest thinking way ahead to a short phrase that might someday be allowed at the top of tagged articles or in a tag menu, and be nicely instructive for Google arrivees. Also consider the generic solution to turn on a tag menu for all kinds of tags using a top menu tab, like the | + | tab that only appears on talk pages menus. The latter may be obvious, | tags | , but what phrase might be used in a menu of tags which the clicked tab turns on (or appears on a button without the menu)?

• For menu pairs, "watch/unwatch" suggests "tag spoilers/untag spoilers", which renders:

| Tag spoilers | alternating with | Untag spoilers |

but that doesn't suggest a catchy public interest marketing name, say, like the USA grade school concept "Show and Tell". Parsifal mentions "hide/show", that suggests

Wikipedia's Hide'nShow spoiler tags

• Which then renders a menu pair of:

| Show spoiler tags | alternating with | Hide spoiler tags |

Feel free to join in brainstorming. Milomedes 07:23, 2 October 2007

I'm also proud of her diff of my concise explanation of the rhetorical structure of a type of document called a manifesto. The manifesto under study was the architectural plan for the mass spoiler tag removals, as written by a college English instructor expert on writing structure. I wrote this in answer to a question from another user known for his ability at technical logic, and I think it's very clear explanation. However, it does require the ability to think it through step by step and then 'get' it, and probably Melodia has limits on her ability to do this (as do we all). In any case, complaining to ANI that she doesn't understand a techie post written to another techie who asked, is way out of bounds.

Essentially Melodia is making a politically-motivated complaint – that her anti-tag side is losing the spoiler tag debate bit by bit, and she is unable to understand the detailed intellectual analyses that are a factor in causing this gradual loss. She wants the debate to remain narrowly focused on spoiler tags as a insider-editors' opinion issue, and never mind that big publishing money and perhaps a million fans may pressure Wikimedia donations from the outside. (I did not "insist" this; it's a significant forecast possibility that might or might not happen, and I said so.) She doesn't care about the big picture, and has tried to chill me from talking about it – because apparently she does realize how persuasive my points are to uncommitted editors. She also doesn't want to discuss the blatant history of spoiler-tag-removal process abuse, much less the human rights of the 40+% spoiler-averse minority, in control and use of Wikipedia as a global public resource.

Melodia is knowledgeable of classical music debate, but she is frustrated to the point of pique by her inexperience with philosophical debates. I've made every effort to pleasantly explain my positions clearly to her, using entertaining examples and analogies (The 'hidden warning tag test'). Her response has been to become increasingly hostile, and I can only assume that's because she doesn't want to get it, in the tradition of 'my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts'. I'm sorry that she feels that way, but as an encyclopedia is a domain of intellect, it's her problem, not mine.

Melodia has admittedly engaged in notably uncivil behavior: (22:24, 1 September 2007) and tried to prevent me from discussing a technical dictionary analysis of the word "warning" (01:46, 22 September 2007, 2nd post). Yet I've been nice to her following her incivilities: (23:06, 1 September 2007) and (02:35, 22 September 2007).

I have made no personal attacks -- it's not my style to write 'you are a blankety-blank'. Like many lightly-informed editors, Melodia probably thinks a 'personal attack' means I made a criticism of someone's behavior or ideas. However, criticisms of behavior and ideas aren't personal attacks. ("Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions..."[91])

On the contrary, I have been the victim of three personal attacks, one in a multiple attack including another outspoken but civil editor, and one that resulted from a misunderstanding by a careless editor. Melodia and the group she supports see that they are losing an issue for which they felt a we're-in-charge hubris of entitlement to win. Taken aback, they are desperately looking for mud to throw. Naturally, I analyzed and explained what they are doing. While trying to defend against the attack on two editors, a hostile archiving with a pernicious edit summary was intended to prevent me from making a further response (or to provoke an edit war if I tried), and so I wrote an archive dummy edit to explain the truth. (08:14, 2 October 2007)

Some of my best analytical research into the spoiler tag mass removals controversy of May 2007, has Wiki-wide implications. The perpetrators don't want the community to judge them, so they are trying to stop the slowly spreading dissent. For reasons that aren't entirely clear, Melodia wants to help suppress dissent, partly by trying to stop me from telling truth to community.

Melodia doesn't seem to understand that pointless complaints like this one simply increase the number of editors who find out about the unconsensed attempt to expel readers from Wikipedia.

The nutshell history of the spoiler tag mass removals debate that Melodia referred to has this edit summary "It's difficult to summarize a million-some bytes of disputatious debate into a nutshell from the pro-tag view)". The "young users" that she mentions turned out to be a target of the anti-spoiler tag campaign – I documented that the architect of the campaign wants to drive them away from Wikipedia as being a class of young readers/editors who write about spoilers in a style that he considers unencyclopedic (possibly l33t-speak). It is my position that driving away an entire class of users requires Wiki-wide debate and consensus, while the anti-taggers want to treat it as a done deal.

In summary, Melodia seems to understand musical idioms, so I'll quote Bob Dylan, "Don't criticize what you can't understand."The Times They Are A-Changin (1964) Milo 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British National Party

I am not sure if this is the right place but a serious sorting out of this page is required the whole page has ground to a halt over one word. This may seem ridiculous but it has happened. The word in question is fascist (see Talk:British National Party), I request that action be taken to end this stalemate as quickly as possible so improvements to the article can be made. Please forward on to the appropriate area if this is the wrong place for the query.--Lucy-marie 13:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You are going to have far more luck at Request for Comments. Wikipedia does not make executive decisions on content, the parties must figure out how to reach a consensus. Reading through the talk page I see people who disagree, not people who are misbehaving. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC has previously been tried and failed to reach an consensus, where to next if another RfC fails?--Lucy-marie 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The entire process is described at WP:DR. If RfC fails and things haven't changed significantly since the last time you can try mediation if all parties agree to do that. ArbCom does not deal with content disputes and neither do administrators. If one of the parties eventually becomes disruptive by refusing any attempts to resolve the dispute that may open new doors to have that party removed from the debate. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 14:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated Personal Attacks by Suspected Sock Puppet

An anonymous IP at the Juice Plus talk page is engaging in repeated personal attacks and escalating disruptive behavior[92][93][94][95][96][97][98] which has continued despite several warnings from other editors.[99] [100][101] This user has posted anonymously under several IP addresses that trace to 2 different IP blocks. The user appears to be JuliaHavey (talk • contribs • logs), who has a COI and previously admitted that they were a distributor for the product (Juice Plus) that is the subject of the article.[102] That user had made a habit of taunting editors from the sidelines and arguing for removal of well-referenced content that reflected poorly on her product. This user bowed out of WP earlier this year claiming that she did not like WPs policies,[103][104][105]] but now is back using anonymous IPs and is continuing with the same disruptive behavior in violation of WP:NPA, WP:HAR, WP:DE, and WP:COI. The IP addresses being used by this suspected sock puppet are 70.130.211.228, 72.255.25.138, 72.254.148.181, 72.254.131.83, and 72.254.158.183. The 70.130.211.228 IP address used in one of this user’s recent posts[106] traces to the same server as previous unsigned comments posted by Havey several times in 2006 (e.g. [107][108][109]). The remaining IPs all trace to STSN Holdings. Rhode Island Red 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy violations on Samael Aun Weor article

There have been some problems lately on the Samael Aun Weor article. One user recently started editing there and adding things which violated especially WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability, but also which contained factual errors related to OR. Another editor of the article and I tried to explain to that user why his additions were mistaken and not allowed on Wikipedia, and pointed him towards the right policies and guidelines. But he didn't seem to understand or maybe didn't want to understand, because he kept re-adding his edits without any modifications to make them better. After a while I gave him a warning that if he persisted with his behavior I would have to ask an admin for help, and a while after that I gave him a final warning after which he stopped replying in the discussion and just reverted again. So here I am, asking for help with this matter. To me the only option seems to be a block, but maybe something else can be done. His user name is Bluemanang and he also uses 207.164.192.115. The discussion happened to be located at Bluemanang's talk page. The edits in question is:

1. In the section Physiology & Sexology where he changed an existing referenced paragraph into an unreferenced one which is wrong according to the existing reference.
2. The section Official organisms and dissenting organisms is very POV and talks about the "betrayal" of different persons from the Gnostic Movement and other related happenings. All of it unreferenced. Then some other OR stuff.
3. In the External Links section he made a division between external links leading to "Official and authentic" schools and "Dissenting" schools and is highly POV. The editor belongs to one of the said "official" schools. The whole issue of the different associations and schools is a very controversial one.

Thank you. Anton H 14:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. Maybe it would help if an admin or any outside person explained to him why he is wrong, because he seem to think that we just try to suppress information. Anton H 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I should admit that I do not know for sure that Bluemanang and the other IP are the same person, although they started the edits at roughly the same time, they both have French as their first language and have made the same edits. But now they have both responded to a poll as if they were different persons, so I thought that I would add this because I have no proof that they are the same. Anton H 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, scratch the last part, I discovered that Bluemanang at one point said that he had changed one particular thing three times, and one of those three times was done by the said IP-address. Sorry about all the edits, I hope this is the last one. Anton H 15:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dn4cfc

User has been adding a large volume of commercial promotion for the site www.recordstore.co.uk , as with this edit. Would someone please have a word with him? Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help for a WP:DUCKy situation

I'm hoping I can get some help with a little preventative blocking.

• Fatevan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Fatevan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Fatevan3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Fatevan3.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Fatevan4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Fatevan5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Fatevan6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Fatevan7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Fatevan8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Fatevan9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Fatevan10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Fatevan11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

1, 3, and 5 have made only vandal edits.
2, 3.14, and 4 are already blocked.
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 have no edits...appear to just be sleepers. --Onorem♠Dil 15:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Crazydoodle69

Besides the dicey username, this individual appears not only to have reposted a previous and very elaborate article called Trashcan Comedies, but many of the photos apparently used in that article back in March are still in the system. The user appears to have done some constructive edits, however. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Update: I've just left another concern on the talk page; it's a failed AfD deleted back on March 19. Thanks again. --PMDrive1061 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued edit warring and refusal to discuss.

User:Arawiki is engaging in edit warring on the Bin Baaz article while refusing to discuss on talk , the issue being the insertion of a mistranslation of a non-English source. My last comments on the talk page were at 05:55, 25 September 2007 and 10:59, 27 September 2007, both of which went unanswered. Regardless, he has still inserted the edit again on four separate occasions. In addition, two other users have also left comments to him on talk which went unanswered. I left him a friendly comment on his talk page saying it's nothing personal and please discuss on the talk page, but he deleted it. He is engaging in similar behavior on Salafism and Qutbism. He has been warned for violating WP:3RR before and complied; since he doesn't seem to respond well to me, I would like to request that an admin can talk to him about this, as he responded to an admin positively last time. MezzoMezzo 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Range block

I've blocked the range 168.216.0.0/16 for three hours. It's registered to the West Virginia Department of Education, and has been vandalizing the pages of many West Virginia schools over the past two hours. --Chris (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It may not be a bad idea to copy that to the unblock requests mail list for a heads-up . -- Avi 17:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User without control

I am really tired of User:Brkic and my patience has gone. Can somebody block this user because of vandalism and attacking of other users. Evidence for his attacks is here:article Ustaše talk pageUser Spylab talk pageUser Kuru talk pageUser Kirker talk page User Rjecina talk page 1User Rjecina talk page 2 . If his edits are not against wiki rules I will be surprised .-- Rjecina 17:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Spylab one sounds like a badly transcribed chain letter. Blocked them for 24 hours for talk page disruption and threats. Orderinchaos 17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert-warrior

Syed Atif Nazir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) reverts blindly on Islam-related articles, ignoring talk pages and edit-summaries. Here are his most recent edits to Islam-related articles. All of them have been of this kind, excluding his posts to the talk page of the currently locked Template:Islam.

• 03:22, 1 October 2007 At Ma malakat aymanukum, engages in edit-warring without having participated on the talk page, and ignores all posts there and edit summaries.

simply, let me quote the last edit which you have not responded in the discussion page.

"Thats all you keep saying but you have to my knowledge not provided any evidence for it and his page says nothing of what you say.Also, the first interpretation given on the subject has no author/scholar/whatever to back it up, at least this one does. Jedi Master MIK 20:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC) ". This is another comment by last revert by Jedi "rv please give some support for your claim on the talk page, not just your claim over and over again.". I don't need to repeat the same questions others are asking on the talk page. ~atif ^{msg me} - 07:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• 20 September 2007 same, Banu Qurayza.
• 06:59, 21 September 2007 same, Banu Qurayza.

of course, you kept on removing this tag and deliberately ignoring and reverting other administrator Refdoc addition of this tag to the article (see here). pls read Talk page here, disputes are going on and must be tagged at least ~atif ^{msg me} - 07:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• 01:18, 1 October 2007 same, Cologne Mosque project.

Read talk here, you have been asked to participate in the discussion and you did not. I quote

"Arrow740, you ask others to join talk, how about you did that yourself? Please present your objections here.Bless sins 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)".

You deliberately removed content nevertheless. ~atif ^{msg me} - 07:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• 04:07, 29 September 2007 same at Criticism of Muhammad, where he shows no understanding of the issues whatsoever is his edit summary.

discussion is ongoing and you continue to assert a polemicist, anti-religious, Extremist source Ibn Warraq as reliable without consesnsus, ignoring other editors. (see here) ~atif ^{msg me} - 07:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can something be done? Arrow740 03:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

my response below. thanks ~atif ^{msg me} - 04:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The old "others are just as bad as me" defense. See Converse accident. Yahel Guhan 04:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

this definition is invalid as it is no more "just as bad" given many reverts, edit warring etc. by Arrow as compared to me or other editors there. ~atif ^{msg me} - 07:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment to admins: I don't know User:Atif nazir, or this particular controversy but I do know that User:Arrow740's description above could easily be used to summarize his/her own behavior on Islam in the United States, where he shows up to revert [110] [111] but never engages in discussion on the entry talk page, other than to taunt [112] or to reprimand/threaten [113] other editors and very rarely and tangentially on his own when invited to discussion on repeated occasions [114] [115] [116]. I'm not one to take out RfCs or complain at ANI about other editors, but this kind of hypocrisy is where I draw the line. Please take the appropriate action against User:Atif nazir but please also don't forget to look into the disruptive editing behavior of the person calling the kettle black here. Thanks.PelleSmith 12:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:PelleSmith seems to have a bizarre personal vendetta with me. As I indicated on the talk page at 05:35, 25 September 2007, I was swayed from my initial position by her arguments and my only edit since then has been to undo her edit removing 7000 characters with no talk discussion at 03:23, 26 September 2007. Regarding Atif, I assume that he has muddied the waters sufficiently to get away with it this time. Hopefully he will begin to use talk pages now, at least. Arrow740 22:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering who's getting away here? I will request administrators to look into responses I have put above which he terms as "muddying" and also not sure if it complies to WP:CIVIL? Thanks again ~atif ^{msg me} - 05:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

i would second PelleSmith's comments. for Arrow740 to condemn others as "revert warrior[s]" when he himself perpetuates edit wars on multple articles with minimal talk page interaction smacks of WP:KETTLE. ITAQALLAH 12:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This vague attack is false, and not helpful. Arrow740 05:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] response to Arrow740

the same should be said about him. others comment about him also not participating on Talk and ignoring other's comments and also why I made those edits. :

• [Ma malakat aymanukum - 1], [Ma malakat aymanukum - 2]
• [Cologne Mosque project - 1], [Cologne Mosque project - 2]
• Banu Qurayza: NPOV dispute had to put in. Administrator Refdoc also put in the tag.
• [Criticism of Muhammad]: obviously Ibn Warraq does not comply to [[WP:RS].
• many comments about his edit warring can be seen on his Talk page, here are some: 1, 2

I will appreciate if his talk page, comments by other editors for his reverts can be thoroughly looked into. thanks for your help ~atif ^{msg me} - 04:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

when providing diffs, you are supposed to provide the link to his diff, rather than the link to the following diff. And as for the Banu Qurayza link, that edit wasn't even done by Arrow. Yahel Guhan 04:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

for BQ, I am responding why I made edit to put in the tag. following diff are put in to show comments in response to his last reverts. ~atif ^{msg me} - 05:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As anyone who checks the talk page histories will see, I have many, many posts on them, while you have none. Arrow740 05:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

it is interesting to see why so many editors are asking you to respond for your edits on the Talk page, and not me? ~atif ^{msg me} - 07:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if you dont post on a talk page, you cant respond to any posts. That's kinda logical.Bakaman 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If your edits are per consensus, no other editor will ask you to respond even if you did not participate in the discussion. For example, See the Cologne Mosque project Talk page section here (note that Arrow740 blames others for not participating). He did not participate at all in the discussion, however still reverted. Naturally, this is the last comment by User:Bless sins, "Arrow740, you ask others to join talk, how about you did that yourself? Please present your objections here.Bless sins 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)".

As anyone familiar with the situation knows, citing BS here doesn't really help your case. Arrow740 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass image mistaggings by BetacommandBot

Recently User:BetacommandBot started tagging thousands of fair use images, the majority of them having proper fair use rationale for deletion. The problem seems to be in some little-known rule, that each fair use rationale must have the exact name of the article in it. Many images are used in a single article, and thus the enforcement of this rule is completely unnecessary and a waste of time. Also, many rationales actually mention which article is meant, just not in the way that the bot is programmed to understand. There are several concerns at User talk:Betacommand, which describe how the bot disturbs the workflow of Wikipedia, clogging categories, spamming users with hundreds of warnings and so on. I therefore propose that the bot is blocked, and his tags reverted. It is a plague on Wikipedia, and must be stopped.  Grue  15:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats the third malfunctioning bot on this page, first martinbot, then SatyrBot, then this one. I don't know aboutSatyrBot, but MartinBot and BetacommandBot have always run perfectly as far as i could tell. Whats going on?(Oh no, are the bots rising up against us? RUN AWAY!!)--Jac16888 15:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They're rising up in response to this [117]. Kelpin 15:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, i forgot about that, even though i took an interest. No wonder they're rising up. Poor bots--Jac16888 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not a malfunction. The fair use rational does need the article name in it. It is not a waste of time, if you think it is then propose a policy change at WP:NFCC instead of trying to get the bot enforcing the rules blocked. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot never run perfectly, and was often blocked. It is the worst thing to happen to Wikipedia, actually.  Grue  15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The bot is running well in my opinion, performing the task he was appointed to. Most of the blocks were overturned or were the result of a bug. If you spotted a BUG, report it to Betacommand, but don't shoot the messenger please. The bot is only enforcing policy. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We have WP:IAR for a reason. If a policy is stupid, ignore it. The problem with bots is that they can't apply WP:IAR, so they should only be used to implement non-stupid policies.  Grue  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the human running it thought the rule was stupid, then he could tell the bot to ignore it. I don't think the rule is stupid, nor does ignoring it help us build a free encyclopedia. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The bot does not delete the images, an admin does. The admin can choose to either delete the image or to address the concerns (ie, write a rationale/correct it). If I mass untagged images put for deletion without expressing the concerns, stating WP:IAR, I'd expect an angry RfC against me. If you have a problem with the deletion of an image, take it to the deleting admin, not the person/bot that tagged the image for deletion (same applies for articles speedy deletions). -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 16:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there are so many images tagged, there is no way a human would be able to process them all. Eventually, someone will write a bot to delete them all, as it happened last time (I think it was User:Nandesuka, apologies to this user if my memory is glitchy), when a lot of deleted images could've been easily fixed.  Grue  16:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And yes, ignoring this rule does help to build encyclopedia, just by not bothering editors with implementing it. Ignoring this rule also helps to weed unsuitable images labelled as fair use, since the relevant categories would not be as cluttered as they are now, which is important to mantain the freeness of Wikipedia.  Grue  16:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame people aren't as enthusiastic about following the rules for using non free images as they are at uploading and adding these images to articles. These fair use rationales will all need to be fixed sooner rather than later, it might as well be right now. Nick 15:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hundreds of good-faith editors have complained about the manner in which it operates - its latest tactic, tagging images that have a rationale for deletion because they don't have the exact name in a way the bot has been programmed to understand, is ludicrous. Nobody will accept any kind of change at NFCC because it's owned by some truly ferocious free-content warriors, so the only way of improving matters is for the bot tagging to be done in a more helpful way - perhaps a message on the talk page asking for the name to properly added, and not tagging the image for deletion? Some of our more prolific image uploaders, who uploaded images in good faith and utterly correctly according to the rules in place at the time, are now getting subsumed by messages. I do note, Grue, that you haven't raised this issue with Betacommand, or notified him on his talk page of this discussion. Some diffs to illustrate where the bot is wrongly tagging images for deletion would also be useful. Neil ム 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There's too many images to be dealt with by humans, which is why we have bots to do it. Machine readable information on images pages is essential. It might be possible to have Beta add some additional functionality which has the bot tidy up the information into machine readable format, or it might be an idea to have another bot that runs and formats the page as necessary. Nick 16:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When a rule goes unenforced for 2 years, and you start enforcing it, people will grumble. That is no reason not to enforce the rule. If the bot is making mistakes that is one thing, but if the rational does not have a string that matches the name of the article then it is just not valid. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Many images are used in a single article, and thus the enforcement of this rule is completely unnecessary and a waste of time" <--- not true. They might be used in a single article right now, but people often over time add the images to other articles. Thus, the hand-tailored fair use rationale provided by the person should specify to which article their rationale is directed. - Mark 16:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that it's following official policy(10(c)). That said, given that it's started enforcing something that's not been enforced for some time, had I written the task, I would have done it slightly differently; I would have initially informed people what the specific problem was (no article name), but without tagging, and let them know that the bot would start tagging in, say, 2 weeks. That would give them a chance to rectify the issue. But hey, that's just me and how I would have done it. That doesn't mean that the bot is mistagging, only that some people are unhappy that they have to go and do something about the policy they've failed to abide by. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because a policy is hard to enforce is not the reason a policy should be changed. Previous lack of effective enforcement does not invalidate the rule. To further expand on what Mark said above, not only might they be used in other articles, but they may no longer be used in the article the rationale was originally written for, possibly making the rationale invalid. Mr.Z-man 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

The problem here is twofold: (1) Retrospective changing of the non-free use rationale template (the requirement for a specific article parameter in the template was only added recently); and (2) Tagging and speedy deleting when it would take less time to fix the rationale template. Regarding (2), Maybe the way to solve this is to tell admins that they will be severely cautioned (by "the community") if they speedy delete an image when it would have been quicker to add an article link to the use rationale. I presume I am right in thinking that admins don't speedy delete without considering fixing the use rationale template...? Maybe a message along these lines can be added to the template that BetacommandBot added to these images? Regarding (1), retrospective changes are a problem. It is similar to the arguments that upload license tags must not be substantially changed as doing so invalidates the previous uploads. The previous uploaders agreed to a particular form of the license, and it is that form of the license that must remain attached to that image. Retrospectively changing the license tag to say something new is misleading, as it results in (say) an image uploaded in 2004, having a tag on it that was written in 2006. The same arguments apply to the non-free use rationale template. What should have been done is to design the non-free use rationale template correctly from the beginning, or failing that, to create a new template that has a parameter for "article name", to deprecate use of the old template, and to mark the images using the old template as needing to be fixed due to bad intitial design of the template. This is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Non-free use rationales - article parameter. Carcharoth 04:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink:

"This is not intended to be part of the deletion process, but as a tool to help fix legacy images. Check if an image has a valid rationale for the article(s) it's used in, if so simply add the name of the article to the Article parameter in the rationale template and the problem is solved. Only list the image for deletion if you are unable to determine what article the rationale is intended to apply to or if the rationale clearly does not satisfy Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria."

And also see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/Proposal. Part of the confusion here may arise from a cutoff date being applied for legacy images. Ones prior to 1 Jan 2007 are (apparently) not being tagged. Only those after 1 Jan 2007. Carcharoth 04:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I also get the impression that BetacommandBot's tagging is not based on the population of this category, but its own, independent algorithm. But that defence misses the point that the problem here is that one process (Betacommand bot) is saying "fix the use rationale in 7 days or the image will get deleted" (sometimes the problem is the lack of an 'article' parameter, sometimes it is another problem), and the other process (the category) says "this image needs an article name added to fix the use rationale - don't worry, the image won't get deleted, but this category is to help people update this new addition to the template". What these two processes should be saying is "this image was uploaded after 1 January 2007 and needs to be fixed within a week or be deleted", and "if the image was uploaded before 1 January 2007, you have plenty of time to fix it - if it was uploaded after 1 January 2007, then BetacommandBot may have tagged it to be fixed within a week or be deleted". Does that make any sense? Carcharoth 04:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's only a little known rule if editors aren't reading WP:NFCC. A non-free use rationale must be article-specific (or articles-specific, if it applies to multiple articles). That's been the case for some time. The parameter in the use rationale template has been there off and on, but the policy has consistently included this language. Please don't blame the bots for helping enforce policies you aren't aware of or disagree with. Instead, suggest policy changes on the appropriate talk page. -- But|seriously|folks  04:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the talk page at WT:NFC recently? You know I know about 10c and agree with it. I may not agree with the implementation of how to clean up images that don't comply with 10c, but please don't imply that I'm not aware of the policy or disagree with it. I have been involved in extensive discussion on the talk pages of the policy, so for you to say "suggest policy changes on the appropriate talk page" is frankly rather rude. My post above was intended to be informative, to bring people up to speed and direct people to the more specialised discussions. Quite what you post was intended to achieve, I don't know. If, as I surmise on re-reading the thread, you were responing to Grue's intial "little-known" rule comment, could you please make that clear? Carcharoth 04:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new section break to separate my post from Grue's initial one. Butseriouslyfolks, if you were indeed replying to Grue, could you move your comment up there, and I'll remove my rather hasty response to your comment. Carcharoth 04:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Betacommandbot. This is ridiculous. Betacommand allowed the bot to continue running for about 9 hours after having received many complaints that it was misbehaving. This task was not an approved task for Betacommandbot as far as I can tell: it's certainly not listed anywhere. And if this had been taken for a small trial run, these problems would have been quickly discovered and the task would not have been granted full approval. Although Betacommandbot does a number of helpful tasks that aren't controversial, I actually don't think it's at all reasonable to unblock this bot as long as Betacommand continues to create new tasks on a whim without discussion and then ignores complaints that the bot is causing problems. Since this has been a long-standing problem with Betacommand and his bot, I think the bot should remain shut down completely until Betacommand reevaluates his approach. Mangojuice^talk 05:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And just unblocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have full approval and its running without error. so Im not sure why you blocked it. β^_command 06:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mango, this "new" task isn't new, and received approval at that time (We should do a subsection of ANI just for editors rants about Betacommandbot, so admins can keep up to speed, this is getting ridiculous) -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Having participated in this exact discussion in a couple other instances I am going to sit this one out. However, I would like to add one thing. Betacommand is using an admittedly arbitrary Janurary 1, 2007 cutoff date for which articles it tags as missing the article linkback in the fair use rationale. Like it or not, that is a required field and it causes a lot of recordkeeping problems if people leave it off or get it wrong. Whether the cutoff date is January 1 or October 1, at some point we do have to start insisting that people explicitly state the name of the article to whic their use rationale applies. At some point you ahve to fill in the blank correctly rather than get it wrong and ask people and bots to second-guess what you meant. In pracxtice, if it is a simple error the reviewin adminstrator will probably give the image the benfit of the doubt and fix the rationale. But one way or another it has to be tagged and someone has to look at it and fix it. Wikidemo 09:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My experience with such backlogs being cleared is that at various points "helpful" admins wade in to "help clear these massive backlogs" and indiscriminately deleted image after image with only a cursory glance. In some ways, I'm hoping that this backlog, if properly monitored, will reveal the admins that take this kind of slipshod attitude to CSD. Carcharoth 09:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So did anyone understand what I wrote about "retrospective changing" and it being "quicker to fix these images than delete them", or is it possible that there aren't any ways to overcome these objections? Can I repeat my call for admins who speedy delete these images without fixing them to be named and shamed. All it takes in most cases is checking the article the image is in, and writing in the link. I challenge anyone to show me that various semi-automated scripts and tools to delete images take longer to delete the images than to find and add this single link to the use rationale. The alternative is, in some cases, deleting otherwise perfectly good rationales just because one step was left out, and in some cases because the article is implicitly mentioned but not explicitly named or linked. This is bureacracy gone mad. If someone can point out the exact number tagged, and where they are, then I'll be happy to do my bit helping to clear this backlog by adding in these missing "article" parameters. Carcharoth 09:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The new article parameter and Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink have no relation to the bot tagging images lacking an article backlink for deletion. The policy require such backlinks and the bot simply iterate over all non-free images and tagg anyone it find that doesn't link to the article it's used in. The category was created for one purpose only. To help humans locate images that use that spesific template (directly or via specialised templates that transclude it) but as of yet does use the article parameter (wich is most of them since the parameter is new). Many of those images do in fact have a proper backlink to the article somewhere else on the page and those will not be tagged by the bot, it's not looking for the parameter it's looking for any kind of link on the page. The parameter was added to make it more clear to people adding new rationales that an article link is in fact required, the category is to help humans track "legacy images" and over time I hope we can clear out that category by simply adding that parameter as apropriate (it will take a whilte though, there are several thousands images in the cat), though some of the images will no doubht be deleted for various reasons too. --Sherool (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you. I suspected it was something like that, but it is nice to have it clearly explained (finally). One request. Would it be possible for a category to be created to cover images in this category that are tagged by a bot for lacking an article backlink? As I've been saying, it is easier to fix those images than to delete them, even when they date from after the legacy cutoff date. I've said I'm happy to help out, but I'm having problem cross-referencing the categories. Is there an easy way to do this? Carcharoth 13:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge there is no way to make a template put something in a spesific category based on other templates present on the page. However you should be eable to get a list of such images by doing some category intersection scans with the CatScan tool. Once they get the database on the Toolserver up and running again anyway. --Sherool (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I find the idea of admins having an obligation to fix malformed fair use rationales ridiculous. If there is a fair use rationale for an image on its image page, and you want to modify it, you should change it so that it is a declaration by yourself that you believe its use in whatever article constitutes fair use under United States law. That is, you would have to overwrite the original rationale writer's name with your own.

The problem with that is that you are then asserting that you believe the image constitutes fair use in whatever article you are linking to with your edit. What happens if you don't think it constitutes fair use there, such as if you're like me and don't like the use of fair use images for decorative purposes? Should you take it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and know that some liberal-minded fair use newbie will just write a generic (and blatantly untrue) rationale for it? Delete it? Force yourself to write critical commentary on the image in the article just for the sake of keeping it in the article within the fair use requirements?

I am not about to go around making fair use declarations which I do not actually believe to be true. In fact, I do not like making fair use declarations at all, because of the unanswered copyright questions of fair use declarations made by citizens of countries other than the US, in relation to copyrighted material that is not US in origin. - Mark 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

By all means, if you disagree with a fair-use declaration, then contest it. But don't mischaracterise images lacking the 'article' parameter in their rationale as malformed. That is a retrospective change to the template, and in many cases the template parameter didn't exist when the rationale was written. Please take the time to understand the point I am making here. If the article backlink exists somewhere else in the rationale, eg. in the description bit, then what is needed is for the rationale to be updated with an 'article' parameter (as I have done here, for example) and then (if you want) you can contest the rationale. An editor has taken the trouble to write the rationale - have some respect for that. Don't just use a change of the template followed by a backlog of tagging as an excuse to get rid of images you disagree with. And if deletion takes more time than fixing the rationale, then you are just wasting everyone's time, because what will likely happen is that someone will come along later and ask for the image to be undeleted, they will add in the parameter you couldn't be bothered to add, and nothing will have changed except that you wasted your time deleting the image. Of course, if there is no backlink, and a brief look at the article the image is used in doesn't meet Wikipedia's fair use criteria (not your interpretation of the criteria), then deletion is probably fine. Carcharoth 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that I agree with you about the retrospective changing of templates in this manner being wrong. - Mark 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary suspension of CSD for images

Another point to make is that Betacommand acknowledges on his talk page that he left the bot running for too long. See here. I asked him to revert up to the point where he would have stopped originally, but he has said there is no point, and he will instead hold off on tagging images for a few days. Given that the over-run of the bot has created a backlog, would it not make sense to suspend CSD for the amount of time needed to cope with this backlog? Carcharoth 09:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just let the backlog control its self. β^_command 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not clear what you mean here. Are you saying that admins should work through that backlog slowly and methodically, rather than rushing through it and increasing the error rate? Carcharoth 11:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ironically that task would be perfect for at bot - lookup what links to the image like we do when checking for orphans and correct the fair use template parameters or if there is no proper template then fix that. Having a bot categorize something that could be handled by a bot sounds a bit too bureaucratic to me. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 15:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bots cannot do that, since they cannot check the validity of the rationale. All BCBot does is check for a few parts of any rationale, some that it doesnt tag have a invalid rationale. β^_command 16:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. But a bot could fix the problem that gets an image listed in Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink. That is a trivial task. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 16:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And Betacommand's argument could equally be applied to showing how bots should not be used to tag images for deletion. ie. "Bots cannot do that, since they cannot check the validity of the rationale. All BCBot does is check for a few parts of any rationale, some that it tags have a valid rationale." The answer being of course, that the rationale is readable by humans, but not by machines. The real solution is to have bots tag images to be added to a backlog for humans to check. This is effectively what it does at the moment, and we rely on the admins clearing CSD to check and get things right at the point of deletion. So why not have the bot clear images (where possible) from Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink into Category:Non-free images with a bot-generated article backlink. The latter category is then checked by humans. This is similar to auto-generated bot-added stub classes on article talk pages. So why not do things this way? Carcharoth 16:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Having a bot add links is a VERY VERY bad idea. it will just be added to another backlog that will never get worked on. And it will just muddy the water making valid rationales even harder to solve the real problem. And I disagree with your thoughts. BCBot cannot check to see if the rationale is valid for an image use, what BCBot can to and does is check for key parts of a rationale. Items that all rationales need. both valid and invalid rationales are skipped, But no valid rationales are tagged. β^_command 17:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to go through the bot's contributions and find examples? Putting that to one side, the proposed process wouldn't create any new backlogs. It would simply move the images from Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink into a different category. No new backlog, just moving paper around. Ideal task for a bot. Similarly, if your bot tagged all the images in Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink, it would simply be moving the images from one backlog (that category) to another backlog (ie. the relevant holding category, and then, after 7 days, the CSD category). Do you see what I am saying here? Your bot is only shuffling paper around, moving images from one backlog to another. It's just the backlogs you create are time-sensitive and end in deletion. And I've actually been looking through Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink. The vast majority are valid rationales and bot-addition of the links will not muddy the waters at all. In fact, if your bot won't do this, I suspect someone else will soon write a bot and get it approved for this task (moving it to the category I suggested). Carcharoth 17:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

<deindent slightly> To demonstrate my point, I picked four images at random from Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink, and fixed them here, here, here, and here. I realise your bot would not have tagged any of those for deletion, because they already had backlinks, but maybe you would like to find some images that should be deleted, or where a bot adding links based on the current usage would get it wrong. I did find a few, but let's see what you can find. Carcharoth 17:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an example would help. See this edit where someone attempted to provide a fair-use rationale, but left out the article name parameter. What probably happened is that people are copying from old versions of the use rationale and changing the parameters. Of course, people shouldn't do this, and should notice the "ARTICLE NAME NEEDED" bit, but maybe adding something along the lines of "please use the latest version of the non-free use rationale template, instead of copying from outdated versions on existing images". Similarly, the current wording of BetacommandBot's tag says "Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed." - this doesn't say where the link should be placed. It would be clearer to say "Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. If you fill in the parameters of the generic rationale template, you must fill in the 'article' parameter." Stuff like that. Do we have any volunteers to help improve the wording of the templates BetacommandBot is using? Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale - there is an immediate correction that an admin could make: "Unless concern is addressed" -> "Unless the concern is addressed". Carcharoth 12:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins should take care when deleting. I have asked several times for suggestions and improvements for the messages BCBot leaves. As Ive said before BCBot doesnt look for that new parameter. It looks for the article name, it doesnt have to even be wiki-linked. it just has to be there. As for the backlog it will go away as fast as humans can handle it. If a admin is mis-using the delete button take it to that admin. β^_command 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

<BREAK>

Carcharoth, can you write exactly what you think a bot should do at User:Betacommand/Bot Tasks, I think we are having a communication problem here. β^_command 18:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. We've gone beyond the bounds of this noticeboard anyway, so that will be the logical place to continue. Maybe not tonight, but I'll try and gather some thoughts together tomorrow. Carcharoth 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My "Only Warning"

Earlier today I received this warning from an editor Sarvagnya about "edit-warring" in a dispute involving a Wikipedia Featured Picture on the India page. The image, Image:Toda Hut.JPG, has accompanied an image of the Taj Mahal in the Culture section of the India page since January 2007, when it was added there by bureaucrat Nichalp, who was also the main author (to the extent anyone is) of the India page and the main architect of its FA success. However, since its first appearance, the image has also invited attempts to remove it, made by editors who felt that it is not representative of India's culture. In the past the consensus overall had been to keep the image, as evidenced, for example in this talk page exchange. Last week, however, a new editor (to the India page), Thoreaulylazy, without any accompanying discussion, replaced the image with the image of a South Indian Hindu temple. Although his edit was reverted, a long but inconclusive discussion ensued on the Talk:India page. I suggested mediation at that time, but it was not taken up by the other party. Two days ago, another new editor (to the India page), Priyanath, again without accompanying discussion, replaced the Toda image with that of Rabindranath Tagore, India's only Nobel Laureate in literature. After some more discussion on the talk page and after I suggested mediation again, an RfC was agreed to and I created a section for it here yesterday. This morning, thinking that for the duration of the RfC neither image (the original Toda or the unilateral replacement, Tagore) should be on the India page, I removed the Tagore image. This is when I received the warning from user:Sarvagnya, which both accused me of near-3RR violation in my efforts to keep the Toda image and claimed consensus for his and others' efforts to replace it. The latter claim is, of course, not the view of everyone (see also this eloquent defense of the image). As for the near 3-RR violations, here is the sequence of recent edits that involve reversals:

Expand to see the sequence of recent reverts:

3:36 29 September, user:Priyanath's original replacement of the Toda image with that of Tagore. 5:22 to 5:44 29 September A series of edits by user:Sarvagnya in which he tags a number of sections with templates relating to issues that have already been already brought up on the talk page. 9:30 to 10:35 I first remove the templates, then of my own volition, restore them and add dates to them. However, I restore the original Toda image. 10:39 29 September This is reverted by user:Sarvagnya with some information about fact tags that I wasn't aware of. 11:19 29 September I apologize, but remain firm about reinstating the Toda image, since no consensus has been achieved. 15:02 29 September The new editor, user:Priyanath, who added the Tagore image earlier, now reinstates it with edit summary, "adding culture back to culture page." He is (then) yet to make his first "textual" edit on the India page.) 20:48 29 September user:Sarvagnya moves a long-standing (3 years) image of Nehru and Gandhi from the History Section to the Politics Section (with a mild dig at me in the edit summary). 20:54 29 September I revert the change explaining that the politics section is about the Republic of India, which was established in 1950, while Gandhi died in 1948. 21:52 29 September Administrator Dbachmann removes user:Sarvagnya's templates. 11:02 30 September After some discussion on the talk page about the Toda image-caption not being appropriate to culture, I change the caption to one mentioning their importance in Social Anthropology and Ethnomusicology, and reinstate the image. 15:39 30 September user:Priyanath brings back the Tagore image with edit summary, "replace image of grass hut with image of Rabindranath Tagore, per notability, consensus, talk" 15:44 30 September. This is the one edit I made, where because of the provocation, I lost my cool: I reverted the edit with edit summary, "rv to toda hut: Please don't use "pejorative" terms like "grass hut" you do nothing but advertise your ignorance." 18:28 30 September The Tagore image is brought back by user:Sarvagnya. 9:12 1 October Feeling that neither of the two disputed images should be displayed during the duration of the RfC, I remove the Tagore image, but don't replace it with anything (to accompany the Taj Mahal image which is already there and is not disputed). The edit summary is a little confusing, but this is what is meant. 9:19 1 October user:Sarvagnya reverts my edit and posts an Only warning on my talk page.

I have two questions:

• Do you really think that the warning issued to me was justified? The consensus user:Sarvagnya was claiming in his warning consisted of himself (with scant experience of editing the India page), three other editors who are completely new to the India page (user:Thoreaulylazy, user:Priyanath, and user:The Behnam), and one editor user:Nikkul, who, in March, started the drum beat for the removal of the Toda image and then created three sockpuppets who promptly offered a vote each for his cause. (See user:Nichalp's reply to user:The Behnam here.) Meanwhile many older India-page editors, who have played a much bigger role in the page's FA status, are either busy right now or haven't heard about the dispute.
• Although I now teach only graduate students, I have taught undergraduates in the past, and still do interact with undergraduates (on summer fellowships) or high-school students (on summer internships). I say this not to pull rank, but to demonstrate that I am not socially inept or unused to communicating with individuals who bring different levels and ranges of expertise to the table. On the India page, an FA, I have written or co-written three sections: Lead, Geography, and Flora and fauna. In addition, I am rewriting another India-related article, Indian Independence Movement and have rewritten many sections of the Indian mathematics page. Most other India-page editors are kind to me. (See also here). However, my interlocutors, especially user:Sarvagnya, display a gracelessness that is unprecedented in my experience. If you have a few minutes read the first four or five posts here. Why can such people get away with issuing churlish warnings, and removing images unilaterally, while I have to write meticulously worded RfC's and then await that quality of discourse which I already know is not in the cards?

Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the warning was unnecessary, and your civility is admirable, Fowler&fowler. I will remove the warning. I hope that the RfC can settle this image issue, and agree that it would be beneficial if other major contributors to India made comment -- Samir 02:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name Calling, Reverting, Incivility from Anon Editor/IvoBastardo

On September 20 I posted a notice here [118] about an anonymous editor who was engaged in uncivil behavior and refusing to try and come to a consensus about issues regarding the List of light heavyweight boxing champions, James Toney, Roy Jones Jr., Dariusz Michalczewski‎, Zsolt Erdei, and Julio Cesar Gonzalez. I have tried to approach this person and engage in a discussion on these pages: Talk:list of light heavyweight boxing champions, User talk:81.153.185.98‎, User talk:86.134.241.52‎. In response, I have only received statements like this [119] [120].

The editor is now going under 81.153.185.98 and had registered as IvoBastardo. Instead of engaging in fruitless edit wars with this person, I again come to Administrators to ask them to intervene.MKil 19:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)MKil

"IvoBastardo" is blockable as a usernamevio, and I'll go pester WP:RFPP for you. Just be aware I will ask for full-protection because this is a content dispute. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this probably is a content dispute. However, I'm trying to come to consensus about the issue. I've tried to discuss my views with the anon editor. He/She merely responds by saying I'm an idiot. How do you resolve a content dispute when one editor refuses to try and come to consensus?MKil 13:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)MKil

Have you tried giving {{npa}} warnings? If they disregard them beyond the fourth warning, report them to WP:AIV. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:MarIth

Somebody please speedy block User:MarIth, who is trying to pass himself off as User:Marlith, and is moving Marlith's User and Talk page to a variety of offensive page names. Corvus cornix 20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Marlith has been blocked now, too, that's the wrong person. Corvus cornix 20:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And Marlith's User and Talk pages have now gone missing. Corvus cornix 20:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Nasty and skilled vandal. Took me about 5 minutes to just find the pages, but I think I've fixed it all. I wonder whose sockpuppet is this... Maxim_(talk) 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The worst part is that the guy started this campaign back in August and went under cover till today. Corvus cornix 21:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosh thanks, I couldn't find the original page ><. Good work! -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It was created by User talk:Kkrouni as a joke Marlith ^T/C 02:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Then Kkrouni should be blocked for page move vandalism. Corvus cornix 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Kkrouni should be blocked for this admission - [121]. Corvus cornix 23:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, my ip, was used at the beginning of the editing (oops...) but not at the end. I informed him of what he did, and Silver. Do a check user on MarIth, and then you'll see whatever the first part is .199 then someone else. --Kkrouni/こかるに/Ккроуни/ΚκρΩυνι 01:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

+ I've pretty much left, how ironic I come back today to say a quick hi. Anyways, strike that, you don't care, ban me then, I don't use this more than once a week regardless. Believe whatever, as I have struggled through before, this time I've got no fight. Never mind Check User, I'm done. --Kkrouni/こかるに/Ккроуни/ΚκρΩυνι 01:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems Kkrouni posted the password for it on my talkpage and a vandal found it. Marlith ^T/C 02:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thus, it wasn't him who vandalized my Userpage. Marlith ^T/C 02:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag-team edit warriors.

Jennylen (talk · contribs) Librarian2 (talk · contribs)

Jennylen admits to recruiting Librarian 2 to continue her edit war

Spurious vandalism warnings and

Jennylen attempts to cast blame on others for her own editwarring.

Ditto Librarian2

I suspect Daoken (talk · contribs) was also recruited by them, but have no proof of this. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See also this post yesterday about the same user attempting a controversial page move in the middle of an AFD. Orderinchaos 16:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Librarian2 claims he was not recruited, and that the thank you came out of nowhere. If this is true, then I may have acted over-harshly. Judge it and see what you think. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an absurdity carried to the extreme by POV editors As someone has taken care of dragging my good name into dirt just for justifying their actions, I would like to make a very simple statement: To allow editors and unfortunately adminisrators to act in this way is not only a shame, it is a disgrace, however life has taught me that dishonesty carries its own weight and rebounce, so, please go ahead, make your ways as filthy as you want, you will be who need to live with that landscape, not me ℒibrarian2 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As I continue to get messages at my talk page about this, a comment for the sake of transparency: it is obvious by the text in the message portrayed at the top of this discussion (link allegedly showing canvassing) that my message is directed to request administrator's intervention, a right entitled to any user who is not an administrator ℒibrarian2 20:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breach of NPA

Yesterday, before I went to sleep, I voted at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aktron. My vote was strongly disagreed by user:Petr K, but not only that, he committed several personal attacks against my friend and me: "Your friends and you personally have vandalized articles and offended other users – that's the main reason you (and others) were blocked several times."[122]

I asked him to apologize: User talk:Petr K#I demand your apologies. He refused. That's why I ask you to explain him WP:NPA and to force him to apologize both my friend and me.

Not a long time ago another wikipedian tried to ruin my credit here and he almost succeeded. That's why I have to care about my standing more than before. —V. Z. 16:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to seek dispute resolution. Even if it were, admins don't typically enforce requiring apologies from one user to another. I suggest you use the dispute resolution process if you cannot informally work out your differences. It is true that you do not appear to have any of the blocks that Petr K refers to in your block log though. ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: It is true that you do not appear to have any of the blocks that Petr K refers to in your block log though. – It is not true. The user was renamed on enwiki and his block log was effectively cleared. Please, compare one block in log of his previous identity, his rename request and arbitration case. There are much more blocks on other wikis also. --RuM 23:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate External Links

Hi, Looking for some advice. Links to an empty set of forums are being added by an anon IP. On removal (per WP:EL / WP:SPAM these are reverted as "vandalism" and reinstated. Frankly they add nothing but rather than get myself banned for 3RR I would appreciate the best advice on keeping the websites off. The articles in question are West Norwood, Herne Hill, South Norwood, East Dulwich, Penge, Lewisham and New Cross. Thanks, Regan123 16:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell me the IP and I'll block, thats clear spam. Please do revert the links. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the IP, it is now blocked, future reports should go to WP:AIV. (spam is just another form of vandalism). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict). Thanks. The IPs are 87.114.150.81, 87.114.153.233 and also User:Stibble who added the links originally. Regan123 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your assistance. Regan123 17:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Now 87.113.94.179! Kbthompson 17:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, 3RR doesn't apply when fighting vandalism. As for the IP, it hasn't edited since the warning you gave, so keep monitoring it, and if it spams again, report it to WP:AIAV. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:ScottAHudson

This user is a piece of work. First of all, User:ScottAHudson was nominated MfD back in June. The page was kept because he made changes that made his Userspace more suitable. Now, he has everything back, including a number of his "favorite..." (clearly violates WP:NOT) as well as 18 sub pages for different TV shows. He keeps the subpages (which are near copies of original WP pages) and edits them constantly, with no real reason as to why. See his stats. Out of his 6064 edits, 4920 have been to his userspace. That leaves only 1026 to mainspace (most of which have been reverted as he is a "troublemaker" user). Can anything be done with this? Perhaps another MFD of his User page as well as the subpages? - Rjd0060 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Userpage itself is okay - there's nothing harmful or evil in stating what your favourite school subject or pet is. All those subpages where he maintains his own versions of articles aren't as copacetic, though - the MFD was heading towards a delete, and Scott user-requests-deletion'd his subpages to get a "keep". The MFD was closed as a keep based on the changes Scott made (in its original state it would have been deleted). As they have been recreated now the MFD has passed (sneaky), I've redeleted them. Neil ム 21:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the subpages were the main thing. He won't be too happy when he returns from his block. - Rjd0060 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandal

This pathetic user has vandalised too many times to let it go unpunished. [[123]] . Realist2 18:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked them as a vandalism-only account. I would, however, suggest you be more polite to other editors, even if you think they're being disruptive. Don't feed the trolls, etc. --Haemo 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Donjavy

Has continued to upload copyrighted material after being asked countless times to stop, and even blocked once. The most recent example is two uploads where he clearly gave a bad license (unit of currency for a picture of a band). 71.58.97.225 18:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] on-going low-level sockproblem

Hi - can we have a few more admin eyes on the help desk - we have a low-level troll who appears on a regular basis. This is the daily pattern - asks a question about Draafstein, a made-up language that is currently the subject of an AFD (it's a hoax), get's banned for playing games with userpages and then reappears the following day. A few more people playing whack-a-mole would be useful. His currently user-account is Blaaedenooricereichen (talk · contribs) --Fredrick day 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Draafstein was deleted a week ago as a hoax, so I speedy deleted it as a recreated hoax. — Edokter • Talk • 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator incompetence and misbehaviour

Hi, I am being 'stalked' by someone who I think is an administrator and wish to complain about them. The name of the user is Strothra. They have wrongly accused me and warned me for making more than three reverts in a 24 hour period, wrongly accused me and warned me for vandalism, threatened to block me and are following me around Wikipedia undoing my edits (even reverting a sentence I had deleted which was incorrect according to the citated references). They are taking advantage of my lack of Wikipedia knowledge and experience instead of helping or explaining.

How do I make an official complaint (to a higher Wikipedia authority?) or any other advice forthcoming? Thank you. 82.27.39.34 21:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Strothra is not an admin. See here. For an example of the various rights that appear next to a user's name in that log, see here. The best thing to do, I would say, is to register an account and talk to Strothra at User talk:Strothra. Also, read Wikipedia:Welcome and see if that helps. Others may have time to look at the particular edits and give more specific advice. Carcharoth 22:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he warned you about edit-warring, and also about removing content. I don't really see any admin abuse here, since he's not an admin — I see a content dispute. --Haemo 22:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I don't actually edit that article and am not involved in the content dispute. What I was doing was issuing standard warnings for 3RR since there I noticed an ongoing edit-war on that particular article also standard vandal warnings due to continuous removals of cited text. And no, I am not nor have portrayed myself as an admin, but an editor who acts against vandalism and edit warring. --Strothra 01:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Eric.kronenberger

Here we have an individual who has ignored all attempts at contact and has insisted on spamming the site via both his user name and IP to promote his home-based computer business. What part of "Wikipedia is not an advertising medium" do people not understand? Just frustrating as all get-out. --PMDrive1061 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a legitimate user to me. His contribution history shows that yes, while he's written an article about a business run by someone with the same surname, he's also written articles on completely unrelated subjects; yes, they may well end up being deleted but they seem to be perfectly good faith edits by a user who's only been on the site for one hour. Your comments on the talk page seem rather WP:BITEy - plenty of people write articles on friends, family, workplace etc as their first article. The article may have been about a non-notable company but it didn't look like spam to me, all it did was say what the company made. Also, where do you get "Home based computer business" from? The only articles of his you tagged as spam were about a book-binding machine manufacturer, and an (admittedly poorly written) article about a book (On Wings of Eagles) by Ken Follett, one of the most successful authors of the 20th century, many of whose books do have their own pages. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his contribution could be counted on two hands, and most were blatent advertising for his company and two book articles (which read like and were most likely copyvios from Amazon). WHSL seems to be his only valid contribution, but looks to be created to generate exposure and lacks notability as well I think. — Edokter • Talk • 22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to defend any of the articles as I've no doubt they'll all be deleted, but I don't think the bookbinder one was spam for his company; the article says the company's owned by Bob Kronenberger; at a guess I'd say Eric is his child trying to be helpful. These edits were all within the first hour of the account being created - plenty of peoples' first edits are just as uninspiring and they go on to better things. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the articles (save WHSL) anyway and left him an appropriate welcome message. — Edokter • Talk • 23:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• My goof regarding his business. Sorry. However, I tried to reason with him and he simply kept trying to skate around the issue by removing the deletion notices both logged on and logged off. He didn't answer, either. I don't like biting newbies, believe me. I was once one myself and I hope I didn't bite too hard here. I had to drop out under my previous username because of too much pressure from too much NPP...and here I go doing it again. Someone slap some sense into me, if you please...sigh. OK, no more NPP. I came back to edit. Lots to fix. Thanks for the help. --PMDrive1061 23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mothertrucker Band Page Deleted: Admin No Longer Active

I am in a band called Mothertrucker and our page which has been there for a long time recently got deleted the reason being:

"21:42, 20 September 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "Mothertrucker" ‎ (CSD A7 (Band): Article about a band that does not assert significance)"

I have tried to contact the admin that did this but it says:

"This user is no longer active on Wikipedia."

So I can not find out why he randomly deleted our page. A slightly older not as upto date version can be found here: http://www.answers.com/topic/mothertrucker

Could someone please contact me about this and hopefully put the page back as it was if this is possible? Thank you.

James. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestrucker (talk • contribs)

I suggest you take this to Deletion Review Sasha Callahan 23:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• You should check out WP:BAND. The article probably did not meet the notability guidelines set forth there. Dean Wormer 23:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Its not "randomly" if he gave a reason: "CSD A7 (Band): Article about a band that does not assert significance." Did you click on the links to see the detailed reason? Mr.Z-man 23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure is Speedy Deleting under A7 was correct. According to the article (found on answers.com) the band toured the UK, which asserts some notability. The page probably should've been taken to Article for Deletion. Sasha Callahan 23:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Aren't contested speedies normally restored and taken to AfD, if they haven't been through an AfD yet? Dean Wormer 23:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• They usually go to WP:DRV. However, I'm not going to take it there because I'm not going to act as a proxy for a band member, especially since while it probably shouldn't have been speedied, it would get crushed at WP:AFD. Sasha Callahan 23:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's requests like this that really badly tempt me to add some helpful tags to that line about "promotional articles about yourself" in MediaWiki:Newarticletext. Doesn't anybody bother to read anymore? —Cryptic 23:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this is the post-literate era. And if they do read, they don't think it applies to them. Raymond Arritt 01:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be my idea. Since I changed my talk page header to have some big colourful text, I probably have had fewer than five "why did you delete my article?" queries, despite tagging at least 20 "articles" a day for deletion. MER-C 02:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding a rude editor

This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.188.24.125 has been insulting me nonstop despite my trying to calmly explain something to him and I'm just wondering why such a rude person is allowed here to begin with. I'm not the first person he's shown a bad attitude to. He's very egotistical, ill-mannered and obviously lacks the ability to show common courtesy to others. Wouldn't it be better for the site if he was permanently banned? Bokan 23:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Bokan

You're looking for etiquette alerts, not WP:ANI. --Haemo 00:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The IP is clearly being uncivil. He needs a block or a stern warning; not a Wikiquette alert. --Agüeybaná 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, being incivil means people need to be talked to, in general. That's what WP:WQA is for. They're not harassing other users, and their demeanor is not beyond what you would expect from an average teenager arguing strenuously. A block would be massive overkill, and I don't feel that treating them like a child would help either.

[edit] User:Pgsylv AGAIN

This user, against the recommendations of the group of editors on the talk page, has recommenced the edit war again. He continues to post "Quebec is a nation" on the page without having a consensus on the talk page, and against a recommendation to wait until sources are provided. I am recommending the re-protection of Quebec and a second (eighth, actually, but second recent) warning. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 01:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected until this is settled. --Haemo 01:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rktect claims to have been improperly blocked over Arbcom enforcement

Rktect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked on the 27th over a side issue that came up in an ANI thread regarding his or her possible wikistalking by 209.244.42.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), which seems to have been going to a lot of effort to revert Rktect on a range of ancient history articles and to nominate articles Rktect had written for speedy deletion. Whether or not the IP was acting in good faith was not resolved. However, in the course of looking for anything to provide background for the IP's behavior, I ran across an Arbcom case from 2005 (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect) which had resulted in Rktect being "banned indefinitely from all articles which relate to weights and measures (metrology)."

I had seen in an earlier, cursory look at Rktect's contribs that he had been active at Squaring the circle, mentioned specifically in the Arbcom case; had created the article Time of Day; and had been keeping in his userspace what were either preferred versions of articles he would be banned from editing in mainspace, or extremely coherent and organized notes (e.g., User:Rktect/cubit).

I had watchlisted Rktect's Talk page when I left him an {{ANI-notice}}, and I saw today that he had posted a response claiming that he had been improperly blocked and that his Arbcom sanction hadn't been interpreted correctly. He says that he was banned only from articles having to do with the discipline of metrology (the science of weights and measures), and not universally from articles having to do with the mathematics of measurement. That seems kind of like denial and bargaining to me, but Arbcom seems to have gone out of its way to specify metrology as the domain of the ban.

I'm not sure how finely Arbcom splits hairs in situations like this, so someone more experienced in such matters might do well to give a second opinion on this and perhaps give an authoritative answer to the rather long apologia Rktect has written on his or her Talk page. --Dynaflow babble 03:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguing "measures" versus "weights and measures" is such an absurd example of wikilawyering that I had to read it twice to convince myself that he really meant to say that. But apparently he did. If this diff doesn't deal with "weights and measures" I need a new dictionary. Raymond Arritt 04:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That was my initial impression as well. Rktect is correct, though, in pointing out that the incidental discovery of his or her Arbcom violation derailed any effort to look closely at the activities of the Anon who was reverting and speedy-nominating a large proportion of Rktect's contributions to articles he or she actually was allowed to edit. My familiarity with ancient history is such (sorry, Econ major) that I can't be sure whether the Anon was legitimately reverting fringey, weird, OR stuff; or whether it was just being a dick. --Dynaflow babble 04:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV-pushing by User:PHG

See /POV-pushing by User:PHG. —Random832 14:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deborah Mayer

I proposed (PROD) Deborah Mayer for deletion when it was in its early stages and which looked looked like a news event, not worthy of Wikipedia, and which instead should have gone to Wikinews. [124].

The editor Mightyms then expanded the article, and removed the tag, which is fine. I wish for administrator input as to 1. Whether the article is now worthy of Wikipedia coverage (I believe it is as I did Google news search and there are 5 articles, but would still like outside opinion), but that is not the main reason I come to Administrators' noticeboard.

I would not have come here if that was it, however the editor then added in the edit summary tag, [125] this: (rm tag. The asian deletionist probably does not recognize that U.S. Sumpreme appeals are preceded by years of court procedings). I take great offense at that, while it is fine to remove a tag, the editor is being uncivil and resorts to labeling.

I did some further searching and it seems like this editor has a penchant for being uncivil, eg [126] "(Luca de Alfaro is not some "random" faculty unless you are an unaware idiot)" and [127] and perhaps even [128]. Would an admin please have a look and I hope I'm not being too picky or finical and what action might or could be taken. Phgao 07:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I left a talk page note. I think the Deborah Mayer establishes notability sufficiently, although WP:BLP concerns might prompt deletion in an AFD. Any other admins have comments on that issue?--Chaser - T 08:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chaser and I would value the opinions of other admins as well. Phgao 09:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary, particularly about "asian deletionist", is right out, and a warning is very apt there. As for being 'unaware idiots', it is his responsibility to teach us, not our responsibility to know everything about someone when we click the article - if we did, we wouldn't need Wikipedia. I don't see how the final diff is an attack, though. --Golbez 10:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't either, and didn't include it in my message. His response was contrite, though, so I think this is resolved.--Chaser - T 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Article looks like WP:BLP1E to me... Giving it a spin at AfD just to get some closure. Deiz talk 06:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy violating article / consensus not respected / suspected sock puppetry

Greetings. There is an article I've come across, Hindukush Kafir people, that violates many poilicies, including WP:NPOV, WP:Reliable sources and policy againt discriminatory/racist content (the word, "Kafir," is a pejorative, possibly racist Arabic term meaning "ingrate"). The article also uses an outdate source (from over 100 years ago) that use obsolete scientific theories that are, frankly, scientific racism from the ye-old days of imperialism. Some people on the talk page have even said that the content is copied from it's source. Funny thing, is the source -- the lone source, I believe -- is so old it's in the public domain! (The source is Sir George Scott Robertson's Book titled "The Kafirs of Hindukush" from 1895.)

I'm not invested in the article but was thoroughly disgusted by it and had to do something. The talk page for the article has many people arguing with one lone user, Sze_cavalry01, over certain, particularly biased and discriminatory sections (and, in some cases, over the whole article itself). Everyone on the talk page (except for Sze_cavalry01, of course) has argued against the inclusion of this content, and many have been bold by simply deleting it when necessary. However, Sze_cavalry01 refuses to accept the consensus and continues to revert the article per his edits. This has gone on for months. Here is a link to the latest version of the article to which Sze_cavalry01 keeps reverting: Sze_cavalry01's Version. Also, here is a link to the most flagrantly prejudiced section in that old version: Sze_cavalry01's "Kafir Characteristics" Section. Brace yourself! The bias and prejudice/racism in this section is quite strong.

We've tried to reason with Sze_cavalry01, but he just won't accept the consensus. This will be evident from the discussions on the talk page. This is truly last resort; I feel that Sze_cavalry01 will continue in this manner indefinitely if not stopped by administrative action. Thank you very much for your help with this matter. And, of course, feel free ask me any questions you may have regarding the issue. Cheers, ask123 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is now clear that Sze_cavalry01 is sockpuppeting with the IP 76.105.50.27. If you go to the revision history for the article, Kamuia, you will see that this morning (10/2/07) that particular IP address made edits to the article with the following text in the edit summary: "Some noted scholars on Kamuia." Within the next couple of days, the article was edited again by Sze_cavalry01 with the same text in the edit summary. Now that IP is making changes/reverts (per my above post) to the Hindukush Kafir people article in tandem with Sze_cavalry01. Here is the edit history showing the tandem changes: revision history for "Hindukush Kafir people. It is clear that these two accounts are coming from the same place by comparing at their contributions. They contribute to the same articles and, when they do, they do in tandem and with the same objectives. Here are their respective contributions for comparisson: Sze_cavalry01's Contributions; IP 76.105.50.27's Contributions.

Also, here is the progression of recent changes to the Hindukush Kafir people article. As I expected, it is clear from this progression that the IP 76.105.50.27 is the same user as Sze_cavalry01:

diff User:ask123ask123 to IP:76.105.50.27

diff IP:76.105.50.27 to Vantucky

diff Vantucky to Sze_cavalry01

diff Sze_cavalry01 to ask123

Please check out the extended revision history for Hindukush Kafir people and ALT+F (or Apple+F) "Sze_cavalry01" and you will invariably be able to pull up diffs that show this user editing the article with content that violates WP policy and guidelines.

Please check out the talk page for Hindukush Kafir people for evidence of consensus against Sze_cavalry01. Seeing both the talk page discussions and the revision history show quite clearly that Sze_cavalry01 is not respecting consensus. If you'd like, for convenience, here are the sub-sections of the talk page that evidence this (yes, I know, there are a lot of them):

Talk:Hindukush_Kafir_people#Cleanup_tag_added, Talk:Hindukush_Kafir_people#This_Article_is_Terrible_for_Many_Reasons_and_Should_be_Changed_Entirely, Talk:Hindukush_Kafir_people#Kafir_Characteristics, Talk:Hindukush_Kafir_people#Yanked_from_1911_encyclopedia.3F, Talk:Hindukush_Kafir_people#Kafir_Characteristics_section_removed, Talk:Hindukush_Kafir_people#REGARDING__Kafir_Characteristics, Talk:Hindukush_Kafir_people#FEW_OF_THE_SOURCES.2FREFERENCE_RELIED_UPON, Talk:Hindukush_Kafir_people#One_Step_Forward.2C_Two_Steps_Back:_on_Reliable_Sourcing_and_the_Progress_of_this_Article, Talk:Hindukush_Kafir_people#On_the_title_of_the_Article, Talk:Hindukush_Kafir_people#Kafir_Women_section_is_full_of_bias, Talk:Hindukush_Kafir_people#Quote_an_Author, Talk:Hindukush_Kafir_people#Kafir_Characteristics_section_violates_policy, Talk:Hindukush_Kafir_people#Time_for_Administrators, Talk:Hindukush_Kafir_people#ask123.2C_can_you_stop_the_vandalism, Talk:Hindukush_Kafir_people#Article_title_and_outdated_sources

Thanks in advance for checking out this issue. Sze_cavalry01's actions seem pretty flagrant to me, and I don't think that's stepping out on a limb by any means. Cheers, ask123 17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmed sockpuppetry by User:IronAngelAlice

User has been engaged in edit warring on Abortion and Post-abortion syndrome. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/IronAngelAlice confirms that she has been using at least one sockpuppet account, Justine4all, to contravert 3RR on these articles and create false consensuses on their Talk pages. I believe this requires administrative action, per the checkuser's closing comment, so I am bringing it here. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked IronAngelAlice for 24 hours. Justine4all has been indeffed. Please leave comments if you think other accounts are related as well or if you feel the user has abused those accounts in contravention to WP:SOCK. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Note too the possible connection to previously blocked sockpuppeteer Bremskraft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I'll look into that a bit. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bremskraft was blocked for the first time on 05:48, 5 August 2007. IronAngelAlice's account was created the day after. -Severa (!!!) 17:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my reply to the CU request there are several other accounts which are highly likely to be related which need investigating. I guess I should have checked to see if Severa was an admin, I answered assuming that Severa was, and that he or she would carry out the blocking and tagging. I believe it is fairly rare to bring a CU result to AN/I, the CU result itself seems to me to be viewed as the justification for any blocking/tagging carried out, without the need for an approval step here beforehand. There may be exceptions. But of course if one is not an admin, one would have to ask an admin to do it for them so... :) ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it. From my initial review, there is significant overlap on relatively obscure topics between the "suspect" accounts listed in the checkuser request, and I'm strongly inclined to block them as socks based on the combination of technical and contrib evidence. As to Bremskraft, I'm going to leave that to User:wknight94 to look into as he may already have started - if these are in fact felt to be socks of Bremskraft, then all (including IronAngelAlice) should be indef-blocked. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In follow-up, after a review of contribs, I've indefinitely blocked Lvmoi (talk · contribs), Homelv (talk · contribs), and SpiritualLife (talk · contribs) as socks or meatpuppets of IronAngelAlice. They overlap quite signficantly in terms of articles edited, so even assuming that these are different people, the accounts are being used abusively. I haven't looked at the question of whether these are all socks of User:Bremskraft, though a quick glance suggests it's certainly possible. MastCell ^Talk 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From scanning contribs, it seems pretty clear that Bremskraft = IronAngelAlice. The most concrete tie I've found is this edit where Justine4all (which CU said was definitely IronAngel) reverts Jpgordon who had just reverted 70.173.47.6. 70.173.47.6's contribs look very much like Bremskraft's and IronAngelAlice's, especially its first edit which is to User talk:Bremskraft and signed as Bremskraft. You can throw in 131.216.41.16 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) as well whose edits have been corrected by 70.173.47.6 more than once. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm reasonably convinced as well. That being the case, should IronAngelAlice be indefinitely blocked? Bremskraft (talk · contribs) is not presently blocked, so it's not technically block evasion. Nonetheless, this is clearly a user who should be limited to a single account. I personally think that either Bremskraft or IronAngelAlice should be indefinitely blocked and the user should be encouraged to edit using a single account. Alternately, as this user is a recidivist sockpuppeteer, I'd have no objection to blocking them all indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My initial thought is to block IronAngelAlice for a long period - a week perhaps? - and indefblock Bremskraft. If she wants the Bremskraft ID to disappear - which she alluded to a couple times - I suppose we should let it. m:Right to vanish and all. She definitely needs to be told quite clearly to stop socking though. I've seen several positive contributors go down forever just for that. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That IP cited above is Bremskraft. Compare [129] and [130]. I'm blocking Bremskraft indef.--Chaser - T 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Eh. Someone beat me to it.--Chaser - T 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Woops, I beat you to it. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat conservative in my wording when reporting CU findings, I think. My findings convinced ME that IAA and B are the same, but I said 'likely' rather than 'confirmed' to allow for doubt, there is some tiny possibility they aren't. I wouldn't bet a penny on it though. We have a one account limit, if the other accounts are used abusively. As they were here. So one of them does need indef. I say B, why not honor their request. As for how long to leave IAA blocked, sure, a week this time, but that's it, would be my thinking. No more chances. No more socking either. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bremskraft was blocked for using sockpuppets, both confirmed and suspected, but was ultimately unblocked and extended a second chance. If this user had made just one more account, creating a new, single identity to escape the tarnish of the Bremskraft affair, I wouldn't have a problem. However, they went on to create multiple accounts to pose under multiple identities, falling right back into their old ways. I think we should treat this not as IronAngelAlice's second chance but as Bremskraft's third. I also apologize for not making it clearer to Lar that I wasn't an admin by the way in which I filed the CU request. It was the first time I had ever done so. -Severa (!!!) 23:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries Severa. I agree with you and the general gist here... I support the indef of Bremskraft and I'd say if IronAngelAlice does anything wrong at all once that block expires, indef that account too and be done with it. Enough chances have been given. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Seaweed - Disruption and insults by sockpuppets?

User Dr. Seaweed seems to be disrupting the Herbert Dingle article and talkpage. Ignored all recent warnings on talk page and overview: here, here, here, here, here. Disrupting the talk page here, here, here. Suspect that user has recently created a few sockpuppets Brigadier Armstrong, Nurse_Hilditch and specially 61.7.166.72 with this inviting message. Could someone please check whether these are indeed sockpuppets, perhaps of still another contributor? Thanks. - DVdm 18:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Other editors with the same focus are anons 72.84.72.142, 72.64.54.95, 81.156.63.242, 217.43.69.32, and 213.107.15.23; also Swanzsteve and Electrodynamicist.

—wwoods 18:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, that whole page is heckuva suspicious. I'd suggest filing a checkuser request on this; in the meantime, I'll keep my eye on it. --Haemo 18:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the page itself had sort of reached a more-or-less consensus among the pros, the neuters and the cons- so to speak - until this particular string of "newbies" arrived of out nowhere. DVdm 18:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW - This activity is out of character for Swanzsteve, but is very much in keeping with the attitude and frustration of Electrodynamicist. IMO any checkuser activity should be focussed on whether Electrodynamicist is the sock-puppeteer. At the least, the sudden appearance of multiple new editors which are obiously SPA-s with identical agendas speaks of sock-puppertry. That these editors already have a strong opinion about the Herbert Dingle article and are familiar with undoing edits speaks of an experienced Wikipedia editor being behind this, and also one who is familiar with the article (and who therefore has almost certainly edited it.) --EMS | Talk 20:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See also a recent message from Herbert Dingle, the subject of the article, clearly showing why he is here and his intentions. Another puppet? - DVdm 08:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy blanking of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats

Hi, folks. I'm sorry to open a wound which was healing, but I was surprised to discover that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats had been subjected to "courtesy blanking". This seemed like a bad idea to me, and to several editors who had commented at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats. I contacted ^demon (talk · contribs) (who had originated the blanking) and WJBscribe (talk · contribs) (who had reinserted it), and asked for them to explain the blanking decision. ^demon said that he didn't mind it being reverted, and I did so. However, WJBscribe has objected. I'm sorry to raise all of this again, but I suppose I need to find out what the general feeling about this is.

WJBscribe's position was that since the AfD used the real name of a contributor (Jimbo) and contained some assumptions of bad faith and comments which could be considered derogatory, it is appropriate the the page's contents be hidden from Google bots in the history. My feeling is that doing this gives an appearance that we're trying to hide our dirty laundry. Wikipedia is founded on openness, and although this incident isn't one we can be particularly proud of, it's better for us in the long run to keep the information in the sunshine rather than hide it in the history. People unfamiliar with Wikipedia's operations might not understand how to find or interpret the relevant diffs, and we shouldn't try to exclude these people from seeing what we do, warts and all.

If the content of the AfD were a serious breach of privacy for a private individual, then I would respect the blanking. But I don't see how a few derogatory comments about Jimbo rise to the level of something which needs to be hidden. Jimbo is a public figure, especially with regard to Wikipedia. He doesn't need us "protecting" his reputation — the entire Wikimedia empire stands as a testimony to his talent. There's a huge difference between someone assuming bad faith of Jimbo in an AfD and someone making a personal attack on a private individual. I hope that other admins see this distinction. However, if there's a consensus here that the page should remain blanked, I'll abide by it, of course. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't AFDs not show up on google anyway? [131] Someguy1221 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm- it does look from that as if they don't. Which does change things quite a lot. Did anyone think to let admins know they no longer show up on google? WjBscribe 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It was in the BRION report in the signpost a few weeks ago. RFA's are no longer indexed as well. As I understanding it, courtesy blanking is not altogether obsolete. Can anyone think of any exceptions before we start the TfD? ➪HiDrNick! 17:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I really didn't want a thread here and even made it clear that I would rather accept a decision I disagreed with than have this drama further prolonged. Seeing as its here, courtesy blankings are just that, a courtesy. We should aim to be courteous whenever possible. If someone who participated in a discussion, reads a discussion, is the subject of a discussion on meta page which contains both (a) negative comments and (b) the real name of a person requests a courtesy blanking it should be done unless there is a very good reason not to. Blanking a page is totally trivial - the content can still be found in the history, but it has the appearance of closing the matter furth and hides the discussion from google Bots. The suggestion that we should extend less courtesy to a longstanding contributor than to others strikes me as odd. That discussion should be blanked because several people have expressed the review that it should be blanked. WjBscribe 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A recent AfD on a living person included the comment that he was a "notable crackpot and antisemite." It was subsequently blanked, I believe appropriately. Some Arbitration case pages that included accusations against editors whose real names were known have also been blanked. While I don't believe Jimbo should get special treatment above and beyond other editors and individuals, he should not be treated worse either. That AfD had many accusations of bad faith actions on his part, and rather than monkey with it by editing individual comments, blanking the entire AfD but leaving its history intact should anyone want to review the discussion seems like an appropriate action. Thatcher131 20:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO it should remain blanked, courtesy blanking should not be controversial and the afd is available in the history, SqueakBox 20:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the blanking seems appropriate. Even if it does not show up on Google, anyone referencing past AfD's can still check the history. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that AfD which is as defamatory towards Jimbo as the "notable crackpot and antisemite" comment. I agree that courtesy blanking is appropriate in some circumstances, but I don't see how this case rises to that standard. I also didn't see any evidence that Jimbo had requested the blanking, which WJBscribe seems to be assuming. If he did, that changes things; however, it would have been appropriate to mention that somewhere. Also, the fact that the blanking was originally performed by ^demon, a participant in the debate (and also the subject of some accusations of bad faith) gave the appearance of a conflict of interest.

I'm not saying that we should extend less courtesy to Jimbo than to other public figures. But I think that the standard for public figures is different than the standard for private individuals, and Jimbo is definitely a public figure, especially in the context of Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said I believe Jimbo requested it - as I said above, I believe a request by anyone who was involved in or read the discussion should suffice. Otherwise the result would be rather harsh on those who never discover a meta-discussion about them... WjBscribe 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about ^demon, he said that he didn't mind the blanking being reverted. I wouldn't have restored the page's content if he hadn't said that it was OK by him. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you're after consensus, leave it blank reblank it, because it's the courteous thing to do, and because it does no harm. Small upside, no downside. --barneca (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

An argument can be made that the blanking does a small harm to Wikipedia, insofar as it gives the impression that as a project we're more interested in hiding an ugly debate than in open discussion. Since openness was one of the principles on which the project was founded, it's possible to see an attempt to hide less-than-complimentary content as hypocrisy. I know that the intentions behind the blanking are good, I'm just worried that it might give the appearance of an attempted cover-up. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, it's an AFD on a restaurant, which ended as a "keep". There was no rank incivility, or upsetting topics being discussed. If such a vanilla AFD had taken place on an article that had been created by anyone other than Jimmy, would we have "courtesy blanked" it? Hah! It would make no more or less sense to "courtesy blank" all AFDs. Why don't we do that? It would, after all, be the courteous thing to do, and it would do no harm. Neil ム 21:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Realistically, the AfD should be linked from the article talk page, so who gives a flying fuck if it's blanked? Courtesy blank AfDs where people ask for it - it's not a big deal. WilyD 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But I don't think anyone did ask for blanking in this case. As far as I can tell, ^demon blanked the page because he thought it would be a nice gesture, after his conflict with Jimbo. That would be fine, except that it gives the appearance that we're trying to hide something. Are we? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I agree with the courtesy blanking. Folks want it, it's a courtesy, let's do it. Second, Josiah, with all due respect, I think that you're arguing against the tide here - and that's totally okay - I support and defend your right to do it. But I'd point out that I think consensus is moving against you, and while I know you feel strongly about it, is this the hill to fight for? I think your argument that blanking can do harm is a little weak. As WJBscribe said, it's a courtesy. Let's be courteous. We're not hiding the dirty laundry, it's all right there in the history. It's not like we're hiding revisions or anything here - we're not locking out non-admins. - Philippe | Talk 21:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

One possibility to increase transparency would be to use the template (can't remember which one) that allows you to link to the pre-blanking version. Or to manually link to the pre-blanking version of the page. That way the process remains transparent to those who don't know to look in the page history, like, say the casual readers who read the LA Times newspaper report about this AfD? Seriously. Have a look at this week's WP:SIGNPOST for details (specifically, here). Also, the link to the AfD from the article's talk page could be tweaked to link to the pre-blanking version instead of, or as well as, the blanked version. Carcharoth 21:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Those casual readers are exactly who I was thinking of. The material is "all right there in the history", but a casual reader won't necessarily know how to access it. I'd support a link to the pre-blanking version as a compromise move: the point is that the discussion should be accessible to people who don't necessarily understand all the mechanisms of Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an opposing school of thought to "Courtesy blanking should be a courtesy extended to anyone who requests it." See (in sequence) [132], [133], [134] for example. [135] seems to have held, however. Mike R 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've restored the courtesy-blanked version of the page, but replaced the "via the history tab at the top of this page" text in the template with a direct link to the pre-blanking version of the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD discussions no longer show up on google

This is news to me, and to a lot of other admins it seems, but per this Bugzilla report it does appear that AfD discussions have been added to robots.txt and can therefore no longer be found by google Bots. What effect does this have (/should this have) on the policy relating to courtesy blankings as their high google profile was one of the main reasons for {{Afd-privacy}}? WjBscribe 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Google isn't the only bot out there, and they could change their behavior in the future. I strongly support courtesy blankings when appropriate under the assumption that some day some search engine may index the content. Additionally, who knows what site could republish Wikipedia content and how that might be handled. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, noindexing these pages makes it harder to conduct an investigation. I rarely use the internal search feature because it's so bad. Now I can't use Google to look for an AfD. Bleh. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Any crawler worth its salt will read and comply with a ROBOTS.TXT file. Burntsauce 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And you're sure that every site that mirrors or republishes Wikipedia also passes through a modified robots.txt? Um, I don't think so. Relying on robots.txt to hide info is a bad idea. What if some day somebody decides to delete that line from robots.txt? What's done can be undone. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but is a page protected with a robots.txt file any more or less open to republishing than a past version in an article's history? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(ed. conflict) This is exactly my point. We're not censoring anything, after all. Or are we. Burntsauce 20:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Its still GFDL licensed so can still be republished (as can old revisions where the page has been blanked). All robots.txt does is create a list of pages that webcrawlers do not visit. I presume it is entirely possible to reprogramme a webcrawler to ignore robots.txt files, but reputable search engines (who have the highest profile anyway) are highly unlikely to do that. WjBscribe 20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean that the only difference in terms of privacy is whether the AfD discussion is readily available, or if the reader needs to go through the history? For the purposes of bots and downstream content users, the content is just as available in the history as it is on the page itself, right? If that's so, then all we're doing by "courtesy blanking" a page like this is restricting its content from casual readers who don't understand how to use the history page. Is that really worthwhile? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the "notable" Wikipedians, and also as someone that engages in investigations from time to time, I have to say that I support the idea of blanking AfDs when real names are involved, and of keeping some of the internal wiki-discussions off of Google. The actual discussions are still easy enough to review by anyone who has access to the page history, but it keeps all the personal attacks and sniping one step further away from the public eye. I do agree that this will make some investigations a bit more difficult, but I think that the tradeoff is acceptable. --Elonka 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

However, courtesy blanking does affect Wikipedia's own search feature. I've blanked an SSP page before so someone's name doesn't show up when you type it into the Wikipedia search box, and that seems to work. --barneca (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is not google but scrapers who use wikipedia dumps to increase their own traffic. See for example http://www.md5security.com/San-to-Ava/car_speaker.php and control-F for my name. I have no reason to think these people will respect robots.txt even if we can guarantee that every legit search engine does. Thatcher131 21:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I'm scraped on that page too. But is there a reason to believe that a) such scrapers won't use past history pages as well as current versions, or b) that the copying of content onto those pages, jumbled around with whatever they're trying to sell, will have any negative effect on the reputation of the individual or individuals on whose behalf the page was blanked? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a major WTF. How do we go about removing AFDs from robots.txt? -- Ned Scott 21:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should AfDs be on google? WjBscribe 21:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I've used Google to search for things I can't remember the location of. Obscure MoS pages. Categories. Talk page archives. Sometimes, even if I only remember a snippet of a conversation, searching for the words and my username gets a result through Google. There is a reason they are called search engines... Carcharoth 21:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

AfDs weren't added to robots.txt, it was in there all the time. However, robots.txt had some bad formatting, resulting in AfDs being spidered by Google; that has been fixed. So AfDs were never ment to end up on Google in the first place. — Edokter • Talk • 22:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)