Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive258

Meatpuppets by two Ryans

Hi, recently I started to chime in on AFDs. One of them was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Mexican_voice_actors. After I voted delete 1, Ryanasaurus0077 wrote this 2. Later after I replied, his "twin brother" Ryanasaurus007 replied with this comment. 3.

I felt this was suspicious, and I reviewed there contributions, and there very similar to eachother. Is this a violation of WP:MEAT?

Thank You BH (T|C) 22:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Likley WP:SOCK and not meat, but who knows? Luckily for us the rules are the same for both instances. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that on the userpage says he is 12 going on 13, yet his birthdate would make him 15, and the fact that he said his twin brother was drunk, and that nobody would name both of their twins Ryan, I am afraid that something isn't right here. --MichaelLinnear 22:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That userpage saying 12 going on 13 is obviously outdated. I think my twin brother forgot to update his user page. --Ryanasaurus0077 22:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, these two users appear to be an example of very poorly thought out sockpuppetry. Perhaps if one was Bryansauraus, and the other Ryansauraus, they could pass off as twins. But two Ryans? They also don't know theyre own ages, and very young to be drunk. BH (T|C) 22:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think that whether they're meat or sockpuppets is irrelevant. I think what's more importnat is that some action be taken against the two accounts. BH (T|C) 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As the creator of that AfD, could I ask someone also explain WP:CIVIL to whichever of these Ryans is the master here? He accused me of being racist and even though I calmly explained on Ryanasaurus0077's talk page why I nominated the article for deletion as well as the general community consensus on certain content he was adding, he continued the personal attacks, continuing to call me racist and comparing me to Tokugawa Iemitsu and Hans Gruber on my talk page ([1]) and on the AfD ([2]). Is this kind of name calling really acceptable on Wikipedia? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above as I was threatened because I voted to delete, i believe the threat is in Diff number 2. BH (T|C) 23:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on WP:Civil in re User:Ryanasaurus0077, I was accused of this: I responded here. You will note that my marking both pages Francisco Colmenero and Jorge Arvizu with {{references}} was legitimate. His response to the articles was to change "Latin American" to "Mexican"[3] and [4] with the non sequitur comment that changing that was "Here's proof that they exist" (edit summary). Neither article has been given any references. SkierRMH 05:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Racial expletive

User:24.17.83.230 has been warned for other articles, though I am having a hard time understanding why they have not been banned for their use of a racial slur in the Wayne Shorter article. I can see no reason why we would give someone a second chance after inserting such extraordinarily disgusting garbage. This user has made it clear from the start that they do not want to be a part of this community. I believe that racial slurs, especially in biographies of living persons, should be a first strike and you are out offense. Thoughts? Relevant discussions to see why this action has not been taken? Thank you. (Mind meal 22:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

We block people to stop them doing bad things. The problem edits to which you refer happened more than a day ago, with no edits since, so a block would serve no purpose. And don't fall into the false notion that an IP is a person: the two are generally only very loosely related things. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If this IP continues his behaviour (within the next few days, so it's reasonable to assume it's the same person), report him at WP:AIV.--Atlan (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks to you both, but if it were up to me that IP would be banned in an instant. Finlay McWalter, I'm unsure why the lack of editing since then makes a block purposeless. If you could explain that to me I would appreciate it. You can count on my reporting this offender the second they add this kind of garbage again. Is there somewhere I can voice my opinion about offenses that I feel deserve instant banning with no warning? I cannot think of a more vulgar edit. (Mind meal 23:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

Your proposed block would stop nothing (because nothing is happening) and has as much (or probably much much more) change of stopping a future legitimate person from editing than the person who made the malicious edits from that address. WP:BLOCK and particularly Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses cover this stuff in detail. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose calling Wayne Shorter a "nigger saxophonist" is just nothing? If other users would become affected by such a ban, they could always create an account like the rest of us and add all they like. How are they prevented from creating an account and contributing (ie. other users possibly using the same IP address)? (Mind meal 23:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

What Finlay is trying to say, is that an IP address is not bound to a person. It could be part of a DHCP pool of addresses, or maybe it's the IP address of public computer, like in a school. Therefore, the next time someone edits with that IP address, it might be a different person altogether. That means the vandalism has to happen right now, otherwise we can't block it.--Atlan (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP last edited at 05:08, 9 June 2007, nearly 2 days ago. Even if it had been immediately blocked, the block would have expired nearly a day ago. I know you don't want that guy editing again, and neither do I, but preventing that individual person from editing again is impossible - that's just now how the internet works. There is no reason to believe that the IP address is assigned to the same guy. None whatever at all. Nada. Zip. So blocking the address now would be pointless. As I explained to you, twice, above. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. I can't see why they were not banned immedietely myself, but that's water under the bridge now. Is there not a way to do an IP lookup to see if this IP address is a school, non-static addresss, et cetera? That's all. It just seems that the edits they had made so clearly rose to the level of a ban, that I had a tough time understanding how anyone could have let those edits pass. Seems common sense to me, but I know how the beauracracy can work. Thanks anyway. (Mind meal 23:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

IP addresses should never be banned (which is permanent), only blocked for a a lengthy period, for reasons stated above. This IP probably wasn't blocked yesterday because no Administrator noticed the vandalism or was notified of it.--Atlan (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, certain IPs (such as open proxies) can be indefinitely blocked. And IPs can often be softblocked (allowing accounts but not anon edits) indefinitely - a lot of school IPs are blocked in this manner. Neil ╦ 12:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of behavior I am constantly referring to when I request a reformation (change) in the blocking policy here at Wikipedia. I am not gloating but am giving you a prime example of what happens when you don't take action against users that violate, constantly, the rules of Wikipedia. Rules are rules and if blocking a user from editing Wikipedia is the way to get the point across, then so be it! There is no need for junk like that. Racial slurs are not tolerated by anyone, nevermind Wikipedia. I thought that this was supposed to be educational!!! How can you assure people that if you cannot take the appropriate measures to keep vandals, trolls, and so on from editing and contributing in a bad manner???? I see no harm, in fact, I see blocking as being overly-acceptable when it comes to a violation of this sort! Please, somebody explain how this could be tolerated among such an educational community. that via my talk page because I am having difficulty understanding this! Redsox04 19:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is "tolerating" anything. It's simply not technically possible to determine that the IP user who logs in today is the same one who logged in 24-48 hours ago, in most cases, so a block on the IP would do no good toward stopping the problem user and have probable collateral damage on other IP users from that area who would be prevented from making good edits. Remember, just because a lot of vandalism comes from IP edits does not mean that most IP edits are vandalism. 64.126.24.12 20:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sonic.jpg

The image was deleted but there's still the upload history. Clicking on one of that links returns a 404 error. Please either undelete the image (if deletion reason was wrong) or delete the rest too. --32X 22:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged with {{db-noimage}}. HTH. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the problem (and the problem persists now that I've re-deleted the image page). It's probably some kind of db screwup, somehow showing revision history regardless. But as this problem is confined to this one image, I suggest we ignore it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not an isolated issue. I've seen this multiple times before and didn't think much of it. I can't show you any others, though, since I ignored it too. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've purged the page; now instead of showing a standard image description page, it shows MediaWiki:Noimage. But the file history is still there... could be an item in the job queue, or just an odd quirk. Gracenotes^T § 01:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Now it displays the image description page again. Odd, odd. Gracenotes^T § 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just filed this as bugzilla:10213 in the MediaZilla. Jesse Viviano 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see the image in the "deleted edits" page. How weird. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User using copyrighted images for userspace

User has been U/L copyrighted images in order to use for his/her userspace. He also modified a logo from an EA Sports Sims Game, but I talked to Becca and she deleted the image, but the person re-uploaded a blank image which is not used in any userspace. This is clearly in violation of WP:USER. Also, could someone delete the copyrighted images on his userpage located via...starting here because 1.) they are blank images 2.) they aren't being used in mainspace or userspace. Thank you. Miranda 09:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussions:

• Deleting images, revert, hiding, revert.
• Image talk
• Logo of my site
• Deletion of Images discussion on my talk

If there are any unfree images on the user page, then they should obviously be deleted. However, I want bring up Image:S2R.jpg. Context about this image may be found at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Logo_of_my_site, where Blacksmith asks about the image, which was created by some person on a forum by combining non-free logo with some new lettering above the image. I told blacksmith that if he deletes the logo part of the image, then the remainder is just three letters, which are ineligible for copyright in the US. Blacksmith did so with my advice, and so I don't want him to be sullied on that point. Also, I want to say that I am still confident that my advice is good, and proposed a way to discuss this on the thread in the media copyright questions page. nadav (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

may i be allowed to keep the blank images for a couple of days, i,e, 24-48 hours, just so i can make new ones, if not, dont delete the links from the page, just hiddebn like they are now, so i can upload new images.Ω§|Blacksmith2 09:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are non-free, then make sure that they add significantly to the articles and to add a fair-use rationale and an appropriate copyright tag. I can help you out with that, but be careful not to upload them just for the sake of your user page. nadav (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

how about free images for the use of my userpaghe?Ω§|Blacksmith2 10:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free media should not exist within the userspace whatsoever. Although, as far as I know by current policy, one can link to the images by doing something along the lines of Image:Example.jpg as such not to have the image on your page. If you created them, then they should be free. If the images are used no where but your user page, and they are non-free, then they will be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, edit the images accordingly, see you all tomorrow,what time is it again? Ω§|Blacksmith2 10:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject, I am concerned about the copyright status of Image:Bustamove.jpg, a screenshot taken from the game The Sims 2. Blacksmith2 believes the copyright on the image belongs to him, because he composed the picture in some significant way[5] Anyone want to take a gander? nadav (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Generalizing the question, if a game includes a map editor, and I create my own map and take a screenshot of it, whats its status? Further generalizing, if an image editing software includes textures (or primitive objects) and I create a scene composed of the objects and textures, what would be the copyright status?

If this discussion goes on for long, I think this should be moved from AN/I to AN. --soum ^talk 11:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well IANAL, but creating new creative works using game graphics and such may entitle you to a copyright on your creative input, however it's not exclusive. The image is still made up entierly of material copyrighted by the game developers, and just because you use it in a creative way does not invalidate theyr copyright. As such you won't have the power to release the image under a free license on your own. If you create new maps and models for a game those will be copyrighted by you, but again taking a in-game screenshot of them in action will most likely include textures and other models not copyrighted by you, making the screenshot itself a derived work even if the map itself is entierly your work. --Sherool (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's copyright by both the game company and you if you create a creative work using game content, I suspect, which would mean that both you and the company would need to release the content under the same or compatible free licences for the image to be free use. There are some situations in which this happens (for instance, {{Second Life screenshot}}), but it isn't going to happen by default. --ais523 13:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this Sims game, so I didn't know if Blacksmith meant that he actually made all the textures and visual components (in which the game would just be acting like a photo editor) or if he was just putting together different pieces made by the game designers (meaning the image would probably be an unfree derivative). My guess is that the latter case holds, but just wanted to make sure. nadav (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Derivative works of game producers. There is nothing further to discuss here, it is a clear cut case. -- Cat ^chi? 16:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

may i say the ea/maxis did not make all the content in the photo, and this isnt a 'i just put it in that way ' comment٧|Blacksmith2 04:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC) oh and it isnt all my stufff either, so the only way to tek the copy right for it would be entirely my own made stuff, apart from using the sims 2 t o take it, oh and regarding the origanl issue, is ea going to sue you over three letters?٧|Blacksmith2 04:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Libertycookies

Longtime disruptive editor. Pushing own extreme agenda. Refuses to abide by Wikipedia rules despite repeated explanations. See User talk:Serendipodous, User talk: Libertycookies, Talk:J. K. Rowling#Politics again. Serendipodous 11:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I see a content dispute - what in particular is the problem? --Fredrick day 11:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There's also an arb case of interest here - Alison ☺ 11:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a case of content dispute, and misuse of deletion of content rather than calls for citation and 'request for comment'. Serendipodous has been a long time editor of the J.K. Rowling entry and seems to be overly possessive of the article. I probably have not responded with kindness to what I see as censorship rather than a productive editing process, but I am not adding material to harrass Seren, I believe the content to be relevent, verifiable (if tagged with a request), and worthy of inclusion. Seren has abbreviated the wiki-mediation process by selecting friends rather than posting a call for impartial comments. I see no reason to block him for his wanton deletes, but he feels a need to drag me into this forum. Libertycookies 12:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to be personal, Liberty has added very little of any value - the vast majority has been complete original research which Liberty attempts to support with a plethora of unrelated citations and lots of inference. Liberty may not have posted content to harass Serendipodous but has certainly made plenty of ad hominem attacks against Serendipodous in various talk pages. Liberty cookies has been warned by several editors and admins on numerous occasions about posting unsupported content but continues to flout the rules. To put it simply, Liberty is an extremely disruptive user who is pushing a personal agenda with no real benefit to the wikiproject or to wikipedia as a whole. Further, Liberty is draining excessive amounts of editor resources in policing these edits and is seriously jeopardizing the featured article process for Harry Potter. AulaTPN 16:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To reply, Aula was directly solicited by Seren to support his viewpoint. Both have been trying to intimidate me into abandoning valid quotes from accredited sources. All of the content is supported and relevent, despite wild allegations to the contrary. Libertycookies 19:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's untrue. I was active in policing vandalism on the HP pages long before Seren contacted me. AulaTPN 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it untrue? Libertycookies 23:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

From Aula's talkpage:

It looks like I'm about to start an edit war and I really don't want to, so I'm hoping I can resolve this with majority opinion. There's a right-wing libertarian dude who's been editing Wiki articles to post opinions about JK Rowling's supposed socialist messages. He added a massive subsection to the Controversy over Harry Potter page on this topic, which I ultimately deleted on the (in my opinion correct) grounds that it constituted criticism, not controversy. A controversy is an argument or dispute, and there is no evidence of controversy in that section whatsoever. I made that point and merged the section with the Harry Potter#Criticism and praise section. Now he's back and he's reinserted his section, but he seems to have missed the original point. Before things get rough I would like to ensure that this goes over as smoothly as possible. Thanks. Serendipodous 16:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism only "Cool Cat" accounts

• Tom cat is cool (talk · contribs)
• CoolCatzzzz (talk · contribs)

I do not know, I just noticed a similar repeating pattern for some time. It seems like a bunch of high school kids with too much time in their hands. I thought it would only be right for me to bring this to community attention. -- Cat ^chi? 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I indef-blocked CoolCatzzzz as a pretty clear vandalism-only account. The other one has only one contrib I can find, to a now-deleted article. I agree with your assessment but would be inclined to give the Tom cat account one more chance. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh there had been a ton of "cool cat" accounts in the past not listed here. -- Cat ^chi? 16:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

10 "cool cat" accounts, actually. More than 50 "coolcat" user names. hbdragon88 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think some are related but others (created in 2005 and 2006) are not. For example, there are four accounts at WP start with Evilclown; 92 and 93 are mine (92 is for a sock for public computers), but 46 and 140 are completely unrelated. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Over 500 "coolcat"s but search seems to be unrelated sets of entries. My point is usernames with "cool cat" in them seems to be often used for vandalism only purposes - thats just my analysis. -- Cat ^chi? 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should block all names with cat in them. You know, just to be safe :) Neil ╦ 19:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sure User:CatherineMunro wouldn't like that. -- Cat ^chi? 19:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Catbar and User:CattleGirl also wouldn't like that. Funpika 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Armenian allotria

Can someone talk to / deal with Alex mond (talk · contribs)? This charming editor is throwing a fit all over Armenian related articles and apparently concluded I that I am a member of a Jewish conspiracy, hiding behind a German name, wich is trying to hush up the Armenian genocide or something (original sound-bite, "you're obviously the worse of the Jewish type."). dab (𒁳) 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• I left a message on their talk page re. personal attacks, FWIW. See what happens ... - Alison ☺ 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Category move that hasn't happened

Resolved

Hi. A category move that I proposed has been agreed at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_by_alma_mater:_Queen.27s_University but hasn't actually taken place. Can someone help out with this? Cordless Larry 19:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is not an "incident" requiring a post on this board. That discussion was just closed yesterday. It normally takes about 4 days for category moves to take place. -N 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sorry, I was told to post here at the article's talk page. Cordless Larry 19:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I shouldn't have been so gruff. -N 19:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I should have realized you didn't know category moving is a manual process. The category has to be changed in every template and on every page it appears on, and there's a backlog of doing so, which means they will get to yours in a few days. If you know how to do it, you can do the process yourself. -N 19:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I didn't realise it worked like that - just presumed that it would happen as soon as the discussion was closed. Cordless Larry 19:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Manplush (talk · contribs) - Persistant Hoax Articles

Resolved

 – Or seems to be, for now? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Manplush has created several hoax articles pertaining to The Saga of Darren Shan, and continues to do so, despite warnings. A list of Manplush's hoax articles can be found on the deletion discussion page. A look at talk page of user indicated numerous other hoax articles, including a whole series of articles created for a fictional anime series. ([6]). In addition, there are several generic vandalism warnings for the user, all of which have been ignored. -AtionSong 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 1 month, given that this is not his first offense and the hoaxes require a lengthy AfD process to fix. Thoughts on whether this was too harsh/lenient? MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. --John 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me as well. A month is long enough that he'll hopefully give up and forget about us... if not and he continues, we can just block him as a vandalism-only account at that time. Win-win! :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling by IP user

A user using the 71.185.143.* range (at least three seperate IPs) has been trolling the ref desk and vandalizing fairly consistently in the past couple days, I know they've used at least three accounts, and I have suspicion of a couple others, although they are somewhat unrelated. Is it possible to block the enter 71.185.143.* range, or at least put it under higher scrutiny than usual? -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A quick search turned up only one on-top edit from the /24, so I'm hoping collateral on this will be minor. Blocked the /24 range anon-only for a bit. If anyone has reason to believe this causes significant collateral damage, go ahead and lift it. Otherwise, I'll be happy to register accounts for any affected users (who can also contact unblock-en-l). – Luna Santin (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hillock65 (talk · contribs) - Persistant Bad faith

The article is Russians in Ukraine, the two parties that over the past month battled out on a never ending dispute are myself and Hillock, the article was locked once to slow the edit war, and on 20:45, 7 June 2007 User:Dmcdevit blocked both of us for sterile edit warring.

On 11 June 2007 Ukrained (talk · contribs) who was previously blocked for incivility, and who has a record of attacking numerous articles made a series of controversial edits [7] to that article.

Using the WP:1RR I reverted back to a stable version which hanged essentially since both mine and Hillock's block has expired. The stable version took a month to come to and it is extremly sensitive. Yet User:Hillock65 chose to revert back to Ukrained's POV. On his talk page I offered him to undo that edit and restore the consensus version that took quite a sweat out of both of us to arrive on.

He refused, accused me of revert warring, bad faith, nationalism, POV (you name it) and told me in his reply that I support Ukrained positions and I totally agree with him and most of all: Discussion is the only way to settle disputes, not revert wars.

Whilst I could not contest the correctness of the last sentence, however how can we possibly come to a settlement if hew agrees to a version that neglects the past consensus achieved by us, and also himself reverting to the new, non-consensus version of the article.

Raising the issue to him he refuse to reply.

Now where does that put me? I am very tempted to press the undo button right now, but I know that Hillock will do the same straight away. Discussing points which are essentially semi-trolling versus common sense ones is only going to be a waste of time. (just read the tone of one of his replies ) I am very tempted to file an RfC or even an RfAr and I want some replies to this fast on advice, I do not want to blocked again for edit warring, however this kind of attitude shown by Hillock is simply unacceptable. Please help! --Kuban Cossack 23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z

is back… after being banned for a week for disruption User talk:Gon4z#Edits returned to Wikipedia today with a whole new set of tricks! Stealing material from other homepages and claiming images taken from other sites as his own and releasing them as Public Domain. As usual arbitrary, unsourced edits and calling all other editors changes that are not to his liking “vandalism” are a given and therefore I will just list all his blocks and his destructive behaviour now and demand that he be banned finally as he has not learned anything in a month of discussions/warnings and bans/blocks! The posts about him here in the last month:

• here
• here
• here
• here
• here
• here

And now the new stuff from tonight:

• Image:Type-77.jpg an image he took from medialab.com, claimed to be the creator (image was taken in 1997 see left upper corner) and then eleased it as PD. After informing a commons admin the image is now poised for speedy deletion.
• Type 77 article is lifted (100%) from here please delete the article as well, because of copyright infringement.
• as usual he has “edited” around 20 articles with (literally) his numbers (i.e. Albanians, Islam in Kosovo- were once more he gives a source that states no percentage, but he makes “90% practicing Muslims” out of that...
• threats and insults: here “this vandalism ahs to stop read the sources and add all the number toget ther and LEARN MATHS” and here “Bluewings STOP vandalising, Albania is a vert well known user of the BTR-250 & Type 77 stop vadalising look at the links on the Type 77 article i have created ” (he created???)

As he got 5 blocks until now and has learned absolutely nothing (!), I suggest it is time to stop this and ban him forever. Anything but this will be a farce as this user has violated now ALL AND EVERY RULE Wikipedia has. --noclador 00:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

some more insults: here: "...are you iliterat can you do maths..." and here "That means I am not a SUCK up like you who goes ruing crying to the admins because he cannot win a dispute, who also changes my pots in the talk page to make it look like I have threatened or attacked hi, and all that still does not change the fact that you do not quote your source correctly it says 373 tanks not 79 where are you getting that number from Hummm... You have vandalized nearly every article there is to do with Albania or Albanians you remove sourced edits just because you don’t want them to be true and wish to spared propaganda, you clearly have some sort of hate against Albanians and like to express it by vandalizing articles Gon4z 00:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)" and that's just in the last 15 minutes! --noclador 00:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the below thread ("User:Noclador constant vandalism"); I've indef-blocked Gon4z (talk · contribs) for the reasons I've detailed there. MastCell ^Talk 01:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:24.68.249.225

Ongoing violation of 3rr at Freemasonry see: here, here, here, here, here and here just for starters (I think I left a few out). Also note misleading edit summaries as well as personal attacks in edit summaries... and on Talk page. This fits with the user being a sock of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer who was banned from editing Freemasonry articles by ArbCom. Note ISP which fits with Lightbringer's known sock farm. User reported at: Wikipedia:Abuse reports but no action taken yet. Blueboar 00:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You should probably list at WP:AN3R and WP:SUSPSOCK. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bokiva copyright cleanup

I need some help dealing with this one. This user, who is fairly new here, has uploaded a lot of images with no source and a Serbian license. If I read that license, and law correctly, only documents are exempt from copyright protection. I don't see anything for symbols, photographs or everything from the Serbian Government. Would yall cluestick him and maybe delete the photographs? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review my actions regarding the Talpiot Tomb

I may have made a mistake in delaing with what first looked like vandalism on Talpiot Tomb due to a report about spam on WP:AIV, but I think that I may have made a misstep by getting into an edit war. Could someone please review my actions? Thanks. Jesse Viviano 03:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I am missing something, but the article history [9] doesn't show any edits by you. Can you clarify what actions you would like reviewed?--BigDT 04:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks like you are referring to the indef block of ItamarPH.D (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Looking now ... --BigDT 04:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for an indef block. I suggest unblocking and politely reminding him (1) not to link to his own works and (2) content added to Wikipedia needs to be sourced. He is apparantly an expert in this field, but a novice at Wikipedia. We should welcome his expertise and help him to get used to our system, not ban him. --BigDT 04:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do that for me. I feel that I will continue to make missteps in this situation if I continue. Jesse Viviano 04:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked him. I'm typing up a message now. --BigDT 04:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The report that sparked this incident is this report to WP:AIV. Jesse Viviano 04:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl and possible sockpuppetry

In reference to this discussion and this one Baseball Bugs and I have discovered the following:

71.56.117.42 first and only edits were to add added cardpricer.com to the Baseball card article.

Twenty minutes later, Blacksoxfan arrived (having never edited this article) and reorders the links slightly. He then adds that same link to other articles: [10] [11] [12] etc.

Blacksoxfan's main motive is to add his own site Blacksoxfan.com to articles [13]. Later Wolverinegod is created. He, too, adds cardpricer.com to articles. [14] [15] He later changes his name to Tecmobowl and continues to argue for the inclusion of Blacksoxfan.com in articles [16] as well as just add it himself [17] [18] [19]

Tecmobowl claimed that the owner of the site was Blacksoxfan. Blacksoxfan had his talk page blanked by 71.56.127.218 (the page was filled with warnings for constantly adding his own site to articles). 71.56.127.218 went on to add Blacksoxfan.com to articles and later admitted to being Tecmobowl. Tecmobowl even went so far as to remove references to Blacksoxfan spamming on an article talk page.

The IP Tecmobowl was using is out of Atlanta, Georgia as was the original IP 71.56.117.42...and the owner of Blacksoxfan.com is also from Atlanta, Georgia.

While Tecmobowl was on a 48 hour block, El redactor appears and his first edit is to add Blacksoxfan.com back to the Shoeless Joe Jackson article. He added it once more after it was deleted and then made a few more useless edits for the day and promptly disappeared. These other edits were pointed to by Tecmobowl as an alibi for it not being a sockpuppet [20]

I am convinced he has been using multiple accounts over a long period of time to add his own links into articles but I would like another set of eyes to look this over. IrishGuy ^talk 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional input I saw some of Tecmobowl's early edits deleting external links. In almost every case where links were deleted, the links were removed without any explanation other than the claim that they were a "link farm". In every case that I saw, the links provided specific relevant information, and in no case were they excessive. In many cases, Tecmobowl eliminated links that provided clearly unique information from hundreds of articles, including clearly-relevant obituaries (see here for one of many such examples of articles where clearly useful links were removed). Efforts were made to encourage all involved parties to reach a common ground. Unfortunately, Tecmobowl persisted in deletion of links, despite repeated requests to respect the status quo while discussions were still underway. Tecmobowl is clearly capable of excellent work (see here for a specific example) when on his own, but seems to have great difficulty understanding that Wikipedia requires building consensus with ALL editors; unfortunately, Wikipedia involves working as a group and respecting the collective consensus built as a group. I had rather clearly warned Tecmobowl about potential/likely WP:3RR violations (see here) which simply went ignored and resulted in a 3RR-related block. It truly disappoints me that someone who can be so productive, can wreak so much chaos in his efforts to impose what he has deemed to be right, despite persistent efforts to try to achieve a mutually acceptable consensus. It is unfortunate that, at this point, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Alansohn 02:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in this edit summary Tecmobowl states: most edits (if not all) from me and BlackSoxFan are from the same IP!! How could that be??? head scratcher huh. If they aren't socks, they are most assuredly meatpuppets. IrishGuy ^talk 03:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I read through Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson and Tecmobowl is pushing that link waaay too hard for me to have any AGF about it. I removed it and removed a few of the other card-pricing links in other articles. This type of stuff shows up in baseball articles all the time and I've removed it on other occasions. See WP:WPSPAM#Assuming_good_faith for some discussion of the linkspammer profile. 75.62.6.237 06:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (Added: There are edit warring problems on that page from many people).

Actually, Tecmo stopped pushing the link and said that he would let it go because discussion was ongoing and he'd trust talk page consensus. All he has done is revert people who have since removed it, and I have said that I'm comfortable with the site on while discussion is ongoing. IMO, it's an ok EL.

• It's unique
  • the list will never be included in an article as it's too long
  • also, IMO, a gallery is unlikely to be included in the article
• While the website does sell product, it doesn't on that page and it's not overt--it took me a couple clicks to figure out how to get to the selling people were talking about. It's also not the SOLE purpose of the website, or even necessarily the MAIN purpose--the website has a lot of unique content included a lot of documents that they host online in PDF format--in additional to trying to make money (or maybe just pay for hosting), a resource is clearly being provided

Maybe Tecmo has a COI, and maybe his adding it was a spam link but I think that it's a good EL. I also don't want it off of the article while waiting for discussion to go anywhere because most of the editors who care about this link are avoiding the discussion--they'll come to the article to revert three times in a day but not to talk content or answer straw poll questions. I personally think it's a good link, and I think that the editors who don't want the link included also have a COI, though a personal on-wiki. They all have the opportunity to voice their opinions--they haven't. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:06, June 11 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a case of "maybe Tecmo has a COI". It is his website. He has used two IPs and three different account to push that website into various articles. That is spamming and sockpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 23:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a checkuser request regarding Tecmobowl and El redactor at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl. John254 07:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL? This is like following a treasure hunt. I go from one talk page to another to another and boom, I end up here. The same guys that have been argumentative and mean spirited. IrishGuy - I just left you a friendly message on your talk page and I have got to say that you are one of the most confrontational people I have seen on here. By the looks of your talk page, Baseball Bugs' talk page, and the comments above about Epfleche, I would say you guys are the sockpuppets. I made my first contributions on Wednesday night before I went to bed, then some more on thursday. Baseball Bugs then edited most of the pages I edited. From what I can tell, you accuse anyone who does not agree with you and get into fights all the time. And aren't you an admin IrishGuy? Aren't admins supposed to be level headed and polite? Maybe you should have that removed. El redactor

User:Yug adding disruptive templates to talk pages

Could another admin please have a word with User:Yug regarding the image or template he's placing on talk pages (my own ([27]) and the Talk:Stroke order page ([28]). I've asked him repeatedly to stop, as the templates are offensive and disruptive, but he persists restoring them. I don't think a block is called for (yet), just a word on his talk page, perhaps. Thanks. Exploding Boy 21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that almost seems like a new one to me, and I thought I had seen everything. ^(H) 21:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but Yug has again restored this image/template to the Talk:Stroke order page. I've repeatedly asked him not to. Exploding Boy 21:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

well..em.. I'm a bit lost for words with that one - I'm assuming that english is his second language? Maybe he does not clearly understand what is going on? --Fredrick day 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

English is his second language, yes. Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to ascertain what he's trying to say. At any rate, I've asked him repeatedly to remove that image (or whatever it is). It's disruptive, and it's certainly not encouraging cooperative editing. He refuses. I'm an admin, but since I'm involved with this user I'd just like another admin to have a word with him on his user page. Exploding Boy 21:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I've removed the image/template several times while keeping all of the content. He persists in restoring it. Exploding Boy 21:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK on second look, there is clearly a problem here and the crux (someone correct me if I am wrong) seems to be as follows - User:Yug's contributions to the article are in broken pigeon English and he seems insistent on replacing coherent content with his own version. He is highly resistant to people rewriting or reverting his material and thinks it is best that he writes and then people clean-up after him - that seems like disruption to me. While wikipedia welcomes all contributions, if your English is not up to a certain standard, it's pretty clear that (as has been suggested to him on the talkpages) that he should get others to check it over before it's added. An admin making those suggestions would clearly be helpful - oh and telling him to knock it off with the template. --Fredrick day 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's more or less correct. Exploding Boy 21:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed the template. Left a note about avoiding it, asking if people can all work together. Hoping this can be resolved amicably. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

From User_talk:Yug#Please_stop:

Luna Santin : can you had this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Yug_adding_disruptive_templates_to_talk_pages :

Notes:

first : I think it is not fair to talk here about me without notice me. I asked you for two day to start a WP:RfC. Instead, you come here find other admins help, with the statement "User:Yug adding disruptive templates".

Second: my edits in stroke order are : delete misleading contents (fully explained in the talk page) in good English, and replace it by better content with English mistakes. Explodin boy don't like this : What is the solutions ? Revert, or spelling correction ?

Third : For the last 2 weeks, EB choice the first way : to make hasty an full reverts. He made no edition onto user:yug/Stroke order.

Fourth : the "disruptive template" is a div + an image to underline why I'm in opposition with exploding boy, this div and image is what exploding boy want revert.

That is why we are in the current situation. --Yug (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC) <I'm admin in Fr and Commons><ok : good night everyone !>

You're right, you should have been notified first. Well, to be fair, your English is really bad. You can't really add any substantial content to an article with that standard of English. I have a hard time understanding what you're trying to say most of the time, so having people clean up after you wouldn't really work. Perhaps you can suggest edits in article talk pages, so other's can implement them in good English?--Atlan (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Yug should have been notified. Sorry about that. The fact remains, however, that the template or image was disruptive. Exploding Boy 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I haven't been notified, and you didn't went to RfC(as I asked you 3 time), you came here.

I honestly think you want do too much, and you make mistakes.

Worse : you lead other in your hasty and diruptive way. Admins have to help, not to create and feed edition wars, like you did. If you are too busy help : stop to revert. --Yug (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC) <I'm admin in Fr and Commons>

Mark Kim (talk · contribs) uncivil behaviour, personal attacks

See his edit history. He's been warned more than once, yet continues to own his talk page and make snide uncivil remarks, as well as personal attacks. Here, being reminded to remain civil, he labels a template as "insulting" [29]. Here he threatens the same editor [30], makes a snide remark again as I remind him to be civil [31], here he makes several insulting and attacking comments Talk:Bose_(company). He's obviously not particularly interested in cleaning up his behaviour, as he's been warned multiple times. Perhaps someone could get involved here?--Crossmr 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As well, he seems to have owned his talk page, claiming to moderate it for any message he doesn't like (which would include warnings and comments about his behaviour in article space, and other pages).--Crossmr 00:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone should have a look at what's being left on my talk page as well. This looks like this behaviour may be rather long term.--Crossmr 00:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this user may benefit from the carrot before we have to reach for the stick. He is very passionate about promoting Bose products here, and I think his reaction is that of a person who is genuinely offended that anyone would question those products. —ptk✰fgs 01:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, where I'm from, we tie the carrot to the end of the stick -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

He's passionate about a lot of things. After some digging it seems I encountered this user a year ago, and he was just as passionately involved in editing the Apprentice Seasons 4 article. In fact I suffered some long term harassment for warning one of the parties involved in that dispute. This goes well beyond his passion for the Bose article, he seems to think anyone reminding him of the rules is an unfair and harsh attack on him, and seems to wish to completely ignore them. --Crossmr 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This still needs addressing. The user seems to be under the impression that its okay to level personal attacks against other users and threaten other users, if its for a "really good reason" like making sure his viewpoint is accepted in articles.--Crossmr 12:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Noclador constant vandalism

I have been suspended a couple of times now, unfairly might I add the admins have seem to only look at one side, I really would like you too take a look at some of the vandalism User:Noclador has caused to nearly every single article that has to do with Albania or Albanians, BRDM-2, BTR-50, T-55, Type 59, Military of Albania, Albanian Land Forces, Albanian Army, Albanian Naval Defense Forces, Albanians, Islam in Kosovo, he was been in violation of the 3RR rule is more than several occasions and I have not seen any action take against him, he removes sourced information like on the BTR-50 article he removed Albania from the operator section even though it had 3 sources, for no reasons when I asked him he would not reply, he never uses the talk page to discus his edits, and he uses obsolete sources and even when he uses those he miss quotes them like this one for example http://www.csees.net/?page=country_section&country_id=1&sec=8 it clearly states there are 373 tanks in service and yet his number is 79 I would really like to know where he got it from. He also has in some occasions changed my words in the talk page to make it seem like have attacked him so he can get be suspended, I don’t like to run to the admin for every little think like a little child runs to his teacher but User:Nocladordoes seem to, but I would really appreciate if you take look into him and see that I’am right and do something about him from editing those articles because he just seems to vandalize them, I would also like if you would open the Albanian military articles and let me fix them again as I did 3 months ago until he started to ruin them everything was sourced and well laid out, I would also appreciate it if you ban him from editing them again, because he surely will vandalize them again, for 6 months no one had problems with my edits but for some reason this guy wants a war with me, User:Noclador associate is User:MrMacMan but his more reasonable guy but he also has vandalized in the past a few articles, he stalk me in every article I edit just to revert it. Well thanx in advance and I really hope you can take a look into this guy Gon4z 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE guys I have tried to be as nice as possible to this guy and still I’am trying he has clearly vandalized and has made me very angry.

Not only that he is in violation of the 3RR rule in the BTR-50 article where for 3 times he has been removing my sourced information I have tried to talk to him in the talk page he has not replied, but what’s wore he has totally deleted the new article I have created today on TYPE 77 I spend 2 hours in that article today and he deleted it all that is really disrespectful you managed to suspend me for a week for a minor edit I think you can ban him for deleting a whole article. Gon4z 01:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The deleted article was an out-and-out copyright violation. Sourced is good; cut-and-pasted is bad. Noclador didn't delete it; an admin did so, appropriately. MastCell ^Talk 01:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the thread above ("Gon4z"), I've indef-blocked Gon4z (talk · contribs) for intentional creation of copyright violations, edit-warring coming right off his 4th block for the same, seeming inability to edit collaboratively, and a general pattern of worsening disruptive behavior. I'll welcome feedback on the block. MastCell ^Talk 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z's post here is an act of bad faith. He has behaved as if he owned the articles about the military of Albania and his comment above "PLEASE guys I have tried to be as nice as possible to this guy ..." couldn't be further from the truth. Gon4z has not provided adequate sourcing for his edits when others asked him for them, and he has been very rude towards several other contributors. See e.g. a few edit summaries [32], [33], [34] and some of the messages Gon4z posted to Noclador's talk page. Warnings that other editors posted to him were simply ignored and removed, including block notices.[35]. See also User_talk:Prodego#Military of Albania. Noclador is known on this project for being a valuable contributor regarding the size and organization of European armies, not for "constant vandalism" as Gon4z claims here. Conclusion: Gon4z has been disruptive and I don't believe he will begin editing collaboratively with others. The block sounds appropriate. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Political userboxes

Resolved

 – This isn't the sort of thing that needs to be brought here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Husond/Userboxes/Assyrian

This user supports Assyrian autonomy in Iraq.

User:Chaldean/Userbox/Assyrian independence

This user supports the independence of Assyria.

I think these userboxes do not help us make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. -- Cat ^chi? 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This user thinks Ashurbanipal was an OK guy if you got to know him. —freak(talk) 03:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This user thinks all non-Babel userboxes are evil. --Haemo 03:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This user thinks this to be a matter better dealt with via MfD, if at all; he thinks it is, in any event, not something requiring administrator attention but, instead, something requiring, if anything, the attention of the community (as any other userspace-hosted userbox with which one has a problem). Joe 03:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This user thinks that, as she finds the above hilarious, she's probably been spending too much time here. Natalie 06:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought political userboxes were speedy deleted. Was there a change in that practice that I am unaware of? This does need admin intervention since I can't delete them myself. -- Cat ^chi? 10:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I filed an MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Assyrian related political userboxes anyways. -- Cat ^chi? 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

BmaninOK

New user BmaninOK continues to make less than neutral edits, labeling Robert Mugabe an "anti-white racist"[36] and a "terrorist,"[37], and complaining about the "left wing lamestream media" on David Brock[38] while removing references. He was asked to stop[39] but has continued [40]. Perspicacite 05:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is still a "warning" situation. There are not yet grounds to block. I reverted his edits to Pol Pot. YechielMan 15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits at William Cheung

Resolved

Viridae^Talk 08:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User User:MichaelMaison has been told multiple times by multiple editors over the past month that his attempted contributions to William Cheung and Leung Ting and Emin Boztepe violate NPOV, lack actual references (he has actually provided none except to copy advertisements from Cheung's website word for word as entry material), and do not follow an encyclopedic format. This is not a place for political minded editing and bickering in leau of actual encyclopedic material. Every effort has been made by the major contributors of that article and the Martial Arts project to explain the situation to him. I (today), as well as another editor (last week) have even tried to rewrite his material in a NPOV manner for him so it could be included (see William Cheung talk page), and this was still not good enough. He has simply responded with accusations, derogatory comments (see page history), and continued re-addition of the same material. Now he's threatening to "dispatch individuals" in person and to further edit war the page [1]. In the past three hours, he's simply resorted to pure vandalism, throwing up any reason in the editing comments for spite. I have also filed for the page to be fully protected [41] . --Marty Goldberg 05:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to echo the observations made by Marty about User:MichaelMaison. The article has gone from relatively stable to complete disarray in the space of a week or two. I can understand the sensitive nature of some aspects of the article, but the user's response has been to make soapbox statements or simply peddle a party line. I personally don't know of correct procedure in disputes such as these, but I think a good precedent could be the Ashida_Kim article. That became relatively stable after protection and some stern action towards a vocal minority of loyal vandals. -- Rpf 06:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the two main editors on each side of that revert war: MichaelMaison (talk · contribs) and Wgungfu (talk · contribs) for massive violations of the 3 revert rule. The former has a 24 hour block (first offence) the second has a 31 hour block (second offence today!Whoops, that block was exactly three months ago). Everyone else should remember that ANI is not part of the dispute resolution process. Viridae^Talk 07:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Protection declined per the block. Viridae^Talk 08:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User: Ned Scott

The user has removed a warning message on Talk:Nova (English school in Japan) each time referring to my reinstatement of the message with the "don't be a dick" message, which I consider to be a personal attack. The message simply says that techers who are employed at the company should have proper sources. Previously, there was a LOT of unsourced NPOV material and OR in the article. I have asked Ned Scott to discuss the removal of the warning message on the page, but he refuses, and continues to revert the warning. [42] [43][44]. Rather than get in an edit war with him, I would like admin assistance. I feel this kind of trivial editwarring is not in good faith. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't let the diffs fool you, I made two reverts and that's my limit. Sorry if I feel a message that says "YOU CAN'T EDIT HERE" is inappropriate. I urged Sparkzilla to make a different warning message, noting WP:COI and all that jazz, but one that doesn't give the false impression that certain people are not allowed to use the talk page. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the message, which was originally posted because all the behaviour in the message was present in the article:

Just because you worked at Nova and think you have some inside knowledge about the company does not entitle you to post here. This page is not the place for rumours that you may have heard, inside knowledge that no-one outside the company knows, or your opinions or the consensus of opinions of teachers about the company.

Wikipedia requires reliable sources, such as items from the company website and newspaper or magazine articles about the company. If you don't have a proper source please do not post on the page. All non-sourced items should be removed from the page.

So the message makes it clear to editors that they should follow WP policy and take care to only post relibaly sourced material. How you can get upset about that, I don't know. You did not urge me to make a different warning message, and I would have happily discussed any new text on the article's talk page, but instead you chose personal attacks and editwarring. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second here, I'm not saying edit warring is right, but you reverted just as much as I did. This "personal attack" you speak of was me trying to express to you that you were making yourself look like a dick with the message. Sure, maybe not the best way of putting it, but in no way am I trying to attack your character or who you are. And maybe you missed my very first message and edit to that talk page: "Warning message has been archived. I would have just deleted it, but it was signed, so I figured it counted as a talk page comment. If you want to note WP:COI here, or something to that extent, great, but don't be a dick about it. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)", so yeah, I did urge you to make a better message. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple of questions. Sparkzilla, why did you make 3 diff links to 2 reverts, which implies incorrectly to the casual reader that Ned Scott was brushing with 3RR? Ned, what led you to decide that the right course of action in this dispute was to replace the contested talk page content with a paragraph calling your opponent a dick? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying "don't be a dick about it" is not the same thing as saying "hey! you're a dick!" I could have, and probably should have, just said "but don't be rude about it". -- Ned Scott 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you said: "I understand that, but you're being a dick in the process". "You're" not "you look like". Throwing around insults when making edits is not acceptable on WP. It is unecessarily combative and does not assume good faith. The three diffs are to show the edit summaries of the initial edit and the reverts. Actually< I realised that in the first edit he didn't write an edit summary but placed this message on the page: "Warning message has been archived. I would have just deleted it, but it was signed, so I figured it counted as a talk page comment. If you want to note WP:COI here, or something to that extent, great, but don't be a dick about it." Clearly shows combative attitude. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Spark, I've already apologized for that, and tried to explain to you that my intention wasn't to call you a dick, but comment on the impression the warning message left. You also seem to be confused, as we are commenting on the message I left on the talk page which does say "don't be a dick about it". Any other use of the word DICK was in reference to THAT. Now you're screaming your head off, saying I keep personally attacking you, when all I did was slip up on one edit summary. I'll admit that even that was rude, but it is not a continuing issue. It was never my intention to personally attack you, and I'm really getting tired of saying that. Maybe I'm not assuming good faith here, but it feels like to me that you're just repeating the words "personal attack" as much as you can to make the situation seem worse than it was. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Would both of you be willing to take 30 minutes away from this conflict and then return here?--Chaser - T 06:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have accepted your apology on your user page. I will replace the warning, and after some calm down time (longer than 30 mins), I am happy to discuss it with you on the talk page. I would urge you to be careful in future with the "don't be a dick" message as it is unecessarily combative and, due to ambiguity in the subject, can be taken the wrong way easily. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I really should stop using that word.. Sorry I got so heated there. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How about we make it a few hours instead, then?--Chaser - T 06:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? -- Ned Scott 06:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A few hours of voluntary time off to cool down so that when you get back you won't still be harping at each other about nothing.--Chaser - T 06:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't be commenting again on this until at least tomorrow. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well Sparkzilla - you're not exactly as pure as driven snow when it comes to making "dick" attacks are you?[45]. By the way it was me you were supposed to apologise to, not the admin who pulled you up about it. See Petard, especially the "hoist" bit. David Lyons 13:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bringing up entirely different situations is poisonous to the process of solving this problem. Please let it lie for a few days, or at least start a new section.--Chaser - T 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User 61.17.42.55

The user using IP address 61.17.42.55 is editing the Indian military articles without providing any source which is vandalism. This is repeated many times.[46] I request this user to be warned and subsequently blocked. Chanakyathegreat 06:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I checked the edits. It seems the fellow has been inactive for the last nine hours, but a 24-hour block might be a prudent move. The repeated vandalism warrants such a response. YechielMan 15:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Resolved

 – unless they don't learn their lesson. Natalie 09:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this the correct place to report a personal attack? [47] ExtraDry 08:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer your first question, it depends. We used to have a noticeboard just for personal attacks, WP:PAIN, but it was tagged historical a while ago because people were abusing it. Now you have several options, which are listed near the end of the WP:PAIN page I linked above. In your specific case, I believe attacks that severe can go straight to WP:AIV. --tjstrf talk 08:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ExtraDry 09:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for that plus various gems in their edit summaries. Natalie 09:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard

• EliasAlucard (talk · contribs)

User maintains an uncivil/insulting tone despite being warned. He continues to maintain same accusatory and uncivil tone in a self righteous manner disrupting a sensitive yet rather routine stub-sorting maintenance discussion. -- Cat ^chi? 10:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I find calling someone a racist a pretty serious allegation. You could have given him notification for this report though. I see you haven't done that yet.--Atlan (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

He has been warned for personal attacks and incivility many times before, to no avail. Blocked for 24 hours, to prevent further wild accusations of racism. Neil ╦ 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't find any warnings on his talk page. Only 1 3RR block some months ago. I don't object the block, though.--Atlan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And now you are making personal insults again. See Wikipedia:Civility. Others have been blocked for that kind of behavior recently. You need to reassess the situation here because I don't think you are looking at it realistically. DreamGuy 11:57, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Whispering 00:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Last warning. Watch your comments or you will be blocked -- Samir धर्म 00:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

These are the ones on his/her talk page. He was welcomed on 10 July 2004 so he must have stumbled upon our core policies by now. And if he hasn't checked out our core policies by now, now would be a good time to do so.

-- Cat ^chi? 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it was just me then. It must have been the small print on his talk page.--Atlan (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Communists

Icar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Francis Tyers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Dahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are doing little more than following eachother around reverting names and communist afiliations from a score of Romanian Politicans from the WWII era. Perhaps widespread protection or sending both of them a discuss-or-leave message would be useful? PouponOnToast 13:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Could one of these users be User:VinceB by any chance? I can't tell enough about the dispute to see who's the pro-communist and who's anti-communist. In any case, I find Icar's constant use of the term "vandalism" to be off-putting enough that I want to ignore him altogether. The Evil Spartan 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have learned to use the term "vandalism" from User:Dahn, who reverts most of my contributions with a note "revert vandalism" or "rvv". One admin left a warning note on my page but not to User:Dahn's or to User:Francis Tyers's. They are continuing the edit war. My reasons for changing is that I follow MoS:BIO and the examples of Lenin and Stalin. The reason for User:Dahn to revert is that he follows my changes and usually reverts them. Icar 13:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Lazio Gio

Lazio_gio is my user name on Wikipedia, for some reason I have been blocked by administrator Duja. Duja is taking a break right now and cannot get back to me. I have written to other administrators but they have not responded either. I have been accused of being a sock puppet of Vince G or Vince B, I am not. Just compare my editing record. Anyways, please write to me at lazio_gio@easy.com I do not want to start any wheel warring but this block is totally unjust, I feel like I am in a Kafka book...

I have created the Wikipedia article on Vilmos Apor and on Count Kuno von Klebelsberg, as well as the article on General Schmidhuber. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.224.28.2 (talk)

This may require a checkuser. The only thing I can be certain is that both Lazio Gio and VinceB have taken an interest in articles related to Serbia. YechielMan 15:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I need to block...

All the sockpuppets of User:Goodman09. Or someone to block the IP range if possible. Multiple sockpuppets such as User:Goodman017, User:Goodman016 and so on ad nauseum. Sasquatch t|c 18:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

More H.E. socks to block

H.E. is disrupting Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/His_excellency with Hisexcellencyreturns (talk · contribs), after CheckUser confirmed that Ibn Shah (talk · contribs) was identical to MomoShomo (talk · contribs). (MomoShomo was not IP-identical to prior socks, but was blocked by admin Tom Harrison as a sock based on behavior, for which the evidence is very strong). Both accounts should be blocked, and if admins could put that page on their watchlist for more disruption I'd appreciate it. - Merzbow 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Hisexcellencyreturns (talk · contribs) should be blocked; his comments on the CU page moved to his talk page; and a link to the page before his writtings were moved to be provided on the CU page for further decisions. --Aminz 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser proves that I am not His Excellency. Please stop bothering me about it. Ibn Shah 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser does not prove anything, it just gives clues. Neil ╦ 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

He is now disrupting ANI with his comments, and continues to disrupt RFCU. If H.E. wants to comment he can do so on his talk page, as Aminz says. (BTW it's funny how all of these accounts that are supposedly not H.E. socks are born as adults, with the ability to find their way to ANI, RFCU, and 3RR at will, with nary a newbie edit between them. Also funny how his self-admitted socks seem to find the time to check these places multiple times a day for mentions of him, odd for a banned user who isn't supposed to be here.) - Merzbow 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a naive comment. I may be new but do you think I'm not going to look over the contributions of people who are petitioning to get me banned with every other edit? Yes, I will, to defend myself. Ibn Shah 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny how you never saw the need to contest MomoShomo (talk · contribs)'s indef then. MomoShomo was obviously the sock of some previous experienced user. The easiest way for you to clear your name is to indicate who that user is. (But the answer, of course, is H.E.) - Merzbow 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't desperate to contest it because I already had this account among other reasons that I listed on the checkuser. Of course the only evidence you have now is circumstantial, so I'm sure you'll try to find every excuse you can to get me blocked. Ibn Shah 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

MomoShomo is banned, are you are confirmed to be identical. Unless some other admin wants to overturn Tom Harrison's block of MomoShomo, you are confirmed to be evading a siteban, and should be blocked forthwith under policy. That's all. - Merzbow 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you always go around endorsing incorrect sitebans or do you really have something against Muslims as His Excellency was alleging in his edit summaries? If Tom Harrison was so confident in his previous block then he would have blocked me himself when he was on Wikipedia a few hours ago. This is getting quite annoying. That's all. Ibn Shah 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"HisExcellencyReturns" and I were editing almost concurrently recently if you look through our contributions. That further proves that I am not him. Ibn Shah 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom just went on wikibreak, so your joy is premature. I formally request that an admin either block Ibn Shah as a sock of banned user MomoShomo, or overturn MomoShomo's block. The status quo as it is cannot stand under policy, with an RFCU-confirmed sock of a banned user walking around editing. That is the last I'm going to say here unless asked a question by an admin. - Merzbow 00:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Shah and MomoShomo have been confirmed as H.E. socks now and blocked. - Merzbow 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The administrative response to this thread was unimpressive.

This is as clear a warning against overreliance on checkuser results as one could hope for.Proabivouac 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If Dmcdevit had not come through with extra-effort checkuser results, we'd still be dealing with Ibn Shah and also Xiao_t (talk · contribs), both H.E. socks and both heavily editing articles together. More admins should become familiar with his editing style and be willing to follow-up on these reports; he is quickly becoming a sockmaster as corrosive as Hkelkar.- Merzbow 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No HE is even worse than hkelkar. Since he lives less than 5 miles from BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) it appears obvious that both are probably colluding in an attempt to undermine wikipedia. The information given to me by Hkelkar before his block (regarding BhaiSaab) makes string of puppetry from NYU/NYC (residence of these two users) entirely plausible.Bakaman 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Per the community ban discussion a couple months ago, it doesn't appear as if BhaiSaab has socked for a while; he appears willing to wait out his block now. Do you have evidence he is socking again, and/or colluding with H.E.? - Merzbow 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Physical threats between students

Resolved

I have just blocked Silver Fang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for extreme physical threats at User talk:Jwarrior343 and User talk:Waveisback77788 (see this diff and this diff). Usually I'd revert, block, and move along. But because it appears these are threats against fellow classmates, I felt I should bring it here to be looked at further. What should/could be done about this? Metros 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Threats of buttkicking presumably happen all the time in junior high schools across the world. I don't see any reason to do anything more than what you've already done. Friday (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Threats of buttkicking are just fine, as we then get to buttkick the one who threatens! As was done here. Moreschi ^Talk 20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but shouldn't I at least contact the Internet police? Metros 20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

...another reason I shouldn't wiki at work: random bursts of laughter is suspicious. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Whew, that picture is funny... but back to business, see this. Apparently it's just a bunch of school kids pwning each other. I gave them their wish and blocked all the accounts that were not already blocked. That should take care of that.--Isotope23 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You did all that you're responsible for. Good job!!! We need to keep that kind of crap out of Wikipedia!!! This is not a freaking chat room! Redsox04 19:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sadkid2010 is a sockpuppet of User:Funnykid2010

My evidence is as follows:

• Similair Name
• On page of Sadkid2010, it says "HalfShadow, why are you posting stuff about vandalism on my page for my other account when I did NOTHING????" proving they have another account, and HalfShadow warned it
• User Funnykid2010 commented unsigned on halfshadow's page
• HalfShadow has warned Funnykid in the past
• On talk page of FisherQueen, they signed a message as follows: "-Funnykid2010, pretty soon Sadkid2010."

This is my first time reporting a sockputppet, so if I stuffed something up, I apologise. Thanks! Matt - TheFearow 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Added more evidence. Matt - TheFearow 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You would probably get a better/faster resolution of this at WP:RFCU or WP:SUSPSOCK. Feel free to ask me questions if you need help posting your case. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jackofalltradesmasterofnone is a sockpuppet of User:Quentin X

As explained on the userpage of User:Jackofalltradesmasterofnone. Dalejenkins 20:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I my opinion, this seems fine on the surface. The Jackofalltradesmasterofnone (talk · contribs) states that he can not log onto his account, Quentin X (talk · contribs), at work, so has created this account (which works). I would probably do the same thing. The user does not hide the fact and this complies with WP:SOCK. However, if there questionable edits or the users are not actually the same user, then there could be an issue. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it does explain that. Is there a specific problem? Sock guidelines do allow the use of multiple accounts for benevolent purposes, and the explanation seems reasonable. They're not editing at the same time or anything, and the sock's talk page redirects to the main account. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote fraud by banned user

12345ak (talk · contribs) was indefinetely banned in April by Moondyne for abusive sockpuppetry.[67] In a previous blocking of one of his sockpuppets, 131.111.8.104 (talk · contribs), Avraham cited this edit by 12345ak as one of the reasons for the block, proving that 131.111.8.104 - registered to the University of Cambridge[68] - was one of the sockpuppets used by 12345ak.

In May a new user account was created, 12345ka (talk · contribs) (note "ka" not "ak"), which voted keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism in Sri Lanka (Second nomination) as his first edit[69]. Out of the 5 IPs which voted to keep the article, 2 are confirmed to be IPs of the University of Cambridge, 131.111.235.31 (talk · contribs)[70] and 131.111.8.104 (talk · contribs) (the confirmed puppet account of 12345ak) [71]. That would almost certainly mean 12345ak / 12345ka was engaged in vote fraud on the AFD.

I didn't think a checkuser request would be required in this instance given the proof, so could an admin please block user:12345ka as a sockpuppet of a banned user, and are there any other ways to prevent further vote fraud at AFDs by the same user using various IPs? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Obvious sock. Sasquatch t|c 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Momusufan reverting all my edits as vandalism

Resolved

 – for the time being.--Chaser - T 22:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Momusufan (talk · contribs) is going aroudn and reverting all of my edits as vandalism, which they are not. Can someone please review? Thanks. --130.15.219.160 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, your edits do not look like vandalism at all. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a content dispute of sorts. Am trying to sort out on Momusfan's talk page and will find a source for the population of the town.--Chaser - T 21:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check requested for a range block

Can another admin sanity check a range block I just did for a half-hour. It's the last thing in my block log. The IPs were vandalizing Wal-Mart, User:DerHexer, and Home Depot, and possibly other pages.--Chaser - T 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Expired by now.--Chaser - T 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Evaded block

User:Wikimegamaster was blocked on the 10th June for canvassing and trolling. He circumvented the block to leave a message on my talk page on the 11th [72] the nature of the message was an apology for behaviour and a promise not to do anything else while blocked. I'm listing it here as it is a block evasion but what do people think about following up on it? Given the conciliatory comments and no other obvious edits being made while blocked should any further action be taken? Mallanox 00:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This does not constitute circumventing a block. People that are blocked can still use talk pages, circumventing a block means editing with an IP or a sockpuppet. DarthGriz98 01:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was under the impression that while blocked users could only use their own talk page to request unblock. Mallanox 01:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistent copyvio uploader still active depite warnings/previous blocks

MaindrianPace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still uploading copyvio images despite numerous warning and several previous blocks for the same repeated offences. Prior to last block the suggestion was an indefinite block. But the next offence only resulted in a 5 week block. NOTE this user is also editing unlogged as IP 66.97.112.223 (talk · contribs) as can be seen in this IP's edit history. Suggest a long vacation for both. 156.34.228.140 01:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

First, this IP user helps a lot on the project, so I trust their judgment. Looking at MaindrianPace (talk · contribs) contributions, there are concerns that this user is not getting what we are asking for through policy. The talk page alone is damning. The user has been blocked five times with four of them being directly related to images. If others agree, I think it may be a good idea to take this to WP:CN. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandal currently on another spree

67.49.181.250 has been vandalizing many articles in the last few days. I notice he has had several warnings before on his talk page but they have not deterred him, and his account is being used solely for vandalizing articles and his vandalism spree doesn't appear to be slowing down. Masaruemoto 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Womcat: A User:Komodo lover sockpuppet

ResolvedAkhilleus blocked the account indefinitely. Pants^(T) 03:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Womcat coincidentally edited some of the same page that User:Black Rhino Ranger edited, including Impossible Creatures and Animal Face-Off. The user even restored a comment made by Blue Rhino Ranger. Pants^(T) 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Komodo lover. Pants^(T) 03:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User Lft6771 repeatedly pushing his original research

He rejects all mass media as "corporate media", "They are all wrong", and "misinformation" and refuses to cite any sources. I repeatedly told him and asked (and even offered him to reach a consensus, which he simply ignored): [73][74]

Instead, he simply reverts to his version (repeatedly), which is not only originally researched but also full of (dozens) "citation needed" marks:[75] Yes, he ignored my warnings too.

Thanks for taking care.--HanzoHattori 08:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Seek dispute resolution. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have time for any of this. As for now, I guess any moderator telling him along the lines of "original research is bad, m'kay" (and that he needs to provide RELIABLE sources for everything) would do. I don't REALLY seek him to be banned (after all, what problem is to get an anouther account and go back with a real vendetta). So, thanks in advance again. --HanzoHattori 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • We are not moderators. We are administrators, ordinary editors entrusted with access to certain tools. If you want the support of other editors in telling this person about original research, then use dispute resolution, including Requests For Comment and Third Opinion, as you have been told to do. Uncle G 09:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I took the time to read up on your dispute (unfortunately, administrators often don't have that time, especially for long protracted disputes as this). I would suggest filing at WP:RFC, and also, I would suggest being more precise. It's my experience that as who ramble on and can't precisely state the nature of the problem are often not paid attention to. The Evil Spartan 16:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • • Nah, I'll decline. I hate all this beurocracy. (Btw, he reverted your revert too.) --HanzoHattori 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review: Soccermeko (talk · contribs) trying to OWN their talk page

See User talk:Soccermeko. They have posted "rules" forbidding the posting of messages to the page. They have reported 2 users to an admin. Also threatened to have User:Moondyne blocked. I've blocked for 36 hours as they had a previous block for harassment and incivility. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I usually say to grant people leeway to do lots of things on their own talk page, but you can't just forbid contact and expect it to be enforced. Fully agree with the block. -Amarkov moo! 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, hopefully a quick jab with the "get a clue" stick should solve the problem. --Fredrick day 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Forbidding people from posting on your talk page is only an invitation for people to do so. —Kurykh 23:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

yes and it's disruptive to boot - the use of the usertalk page is an accepted part of the communication and "glue" that hold wikipedia together. You don't get to opt out of communication from fellow editors (within reason).--Fredrick day 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also agree that posting such rules is inappropriate. The rules are no longer there; for those who want to see it, here's an old version. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Lewisskinner

This user is doing super-speedy reversions, apparently either using a bot or tabbed editing, but whatever he's doing, he's obviously not paying attention to what he's doing, because in many of the cases where he's editing, he's reverting good edits back to vandalism. Corvus cornix 02:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please block him until he responds to the problem? Corvus cornix 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I just spot-checked the last 10 of those he did; they were all either clear vandalism he fixed (8), or seemed to very likely be (2). I don't know if this is manual or automated, but unless you can provide us with good reason to think he's got an automated or semi-automated bot in use, it appears to be good if rapid vandal fighting.

I'm not ruling out that he may have made some mistakes; if so, please call out the specific edits he did which are goofs, preferably to him on his talk page (your note there was too vague). If he keeps making a significant number of mistakes or won't respond to them there, bring it back up here. Georgewilliamherbert 02:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see with his reverts, most of them are removing vandalism, but a few seem to be trigger happy. The controversial ones have been reverted back to their original ones. This doesn't warrant a block; it would be punitive in such a case. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 02:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

His proportion of "goofs" is ten times what anyone actually reading the revisions he's reverting could ever be believe to make, and he's been evasive and nonresponsive when asked to explain. I've blocked him until he gives us a darn good explanation. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See the edit history of Galeries de Hull, where he reverted my speedy delete tag back to an empty article. See his reversion of Donation. See his reversion of Tilt up. See his reversion of Gamma ray burst. Corvus cornix 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See, here's why linking to specific diffs in the initial report is so important. If the first 10 things that an uninvolved admin looks at aren't the problem, then you didn't give us enough info to begin with... Thanks for elaborating now, though. It does clarify the situation. Odd. Georgewilliamherbert 02:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked him to give him a second chance. I hope he learned the importance of double checking what he does. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Humanities Ref Desk

I'm feeling a bit jaded, so am about to take a Wikibreak. So I could be just being an old miseryguts with this edit ([76]). Appreciate some other admins familiar with the Ref Desks casting an eye over this. At first I thought of pruning out the worst elements, but even if you do that, there's no real Ref Desk question at all. Anyway, if I've been too curmudgeonly, I happily expect to be reverted. --Dweller 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a knowledge-based question to start with, from my read. I'd say good job on sending the poster back under his bridge. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

page move got kerflunkeled--help!

MrsMacMan (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

MrsMacMan's move log shows the following:

• 16:11, 11 June 2007 MrsMacMan (talk · contribs) moved Talk:Primary education to Talk:Elementary school (Primary school and elementary school are two different types of schools. Primary school provides primary education. Elementary school provides elementary education.) (revert)
• 16:11, 11 June 2007 MrsMacMan (talk · contribs) moved Primary education to Elementary school over redirect (Primary school and elementary school are two different types of schools. Primary school provides primary education. Elementary school provides elementary education.) (revert)

Primary education redirects to Primary school Talk:Primary education redirects to Talk:Elementary school

I can't even begin to figure out what happened where. Obviously an admin is needed to undo these--if these are moves that need to be done they should be done properly and probably proposed first. I'm guessing it was in the undoing that something got kerflunkeled. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:41, June 13 2007 (UTC)

Why do they need to be undone? Looks like primary education should redirect to Elementary School, as does the talk page. What's wrong with it? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that MrsMacMan has declared that the Way That Things Are Done In Some Parts of the United States Of American Trumps The Way That Things Are Done Elsewhere In The World? Or have I just not looked hard enough? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've moved it back and move protected it to allow a discussion to actually take place (I would say that the majority of the English-speaking nations refer to these as "primary schools"), and WP:MOS says stick with the original title in cases of US vs British English. Neil ╦ 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a fairish assessment. MrsMacMan is a new editor, and honestly doesn't see the problems created by her moves. She just copy-pasted middle school to junior high and didn't see the problem with that and then redirected the middle school talk page to the junior high talk page and didn't see a problem with that either. She sees the institutions as genuinely different and wants to split the article into two (ASAP!), but has yet to explain any difference (and the article makes no distinction), and hasn't quite grasped consensus or other basic concepts (like responding to talk page comments dated 2005 is pointless). She seems very willing to listen, but it's slightly difficult explaining when I have no earthly idea why she does some things. I'd be on the lookout for more big school moves or forks like this, because I'm not sure she gets it yet, but I do think that they are good faith edits. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:40, June 13 2007 (UTC)

Hannahrama

Resolved

 – Recreated article speedily deleted, User:Hannahrama warned.

Hannahrama is with about 99% certainty a sockpuppet of Susannah_Mills. The user has made a personal attack on my talk page, erased a warning from her own talk page, and recreated a previously non-notable, conflict of interest bio of herself at Susannah Mills. I recommend a block. Chicken Wing 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, now isn't that interesting. First edit is to the talkpage for Chicken Wing (talk · contribs), then moves on to recreating a previously deleted article and uploading several redundant versions of an image with no licensing or copyright info (and they appear to be copyright violations from the looks of it)...--Isotope23 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a basis for a block. Even if Hannahrama (talk · contribs) = Susannah_Mills (talk · contribs), I don't see any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry per WP:SOCK. I will warn the editor about the talkpage comment though--Isotope23 17:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Already warned, and I speedily deleted the article under G4 (recreation of deleted material following AfD). I agree that I wouldn't block the account right now, but I left a warning to the effect that continuing to recreate the article or attack other editors will result in a block sooner rather than later. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Fayden

Resolved

 – Seems like everything has turned out just fine... well, for everyone other than Fayden, but whatever! EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have today received two personal attacks via email from the blocked user User:Fayden asking why I blocked his account and then going on to say rather nasty things and make threats about me. I had never heard of Fayden until he emailed, and certainly had nothing to do with his blocking. I'm avoiding replying to him as it will give him my email address. According to others, I'm not the only one receiving these, and he's repeatedly requesting unblocking claiming to have done no wrong, and seemingly has no interest in reading Wikipedia policy. I posted this at WP:VPM, and was directed here. Cheers, Stannered 18:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A diff: [77] Stannered 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've re-blocked him with the brand-new email blocking feature enabled, as he seems to be misusing that privilege. That should dry up the stream of emails, at least. MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Stannered 18:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Where can we learn more about the brand-new email-blocking feature? Newyorkbrad 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same...I see the option has appeared on Special:Blockip. - auburnpilot talk 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell he would be emailing anyone other than me is downright baffling (though I did get an email from him)... I love the new feature, though. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK, under "Setting block options", for a brief explanation of the email blocking option. This is the first time I've used it, but it just felt right, somehow. MastCell ^Talk 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this user faked an email pretending to be from an innocent third party entirely unrelated to the block to unblock-en-l. As such, I have also placed a block on the IP address. I suspect that google search results for Iced Entertainment Media Inc. are going to start including the links to the Wikipedia pages showing this Fayden person's bad behaviour. Well, he brought it on himself. --Yamla 03:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Yet another one. Yosuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been copying news articles (from the Washington Post, CNN and the L.A. Times among others) and creating articles from their content, despite four boilerplate warnings and a note from EarthPerson (talk · contribs). I deleted several of the articles and have blocked Yosuf for 24 hours. Question is, should it have been indefinite? I'm still wary of blocking users, and would appreciate an opinion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable for now. If he comes off the block and does it again, we could consider a longer block. Hopefully this first block will drive home the "yes, we're really serious about copyright" message. Friday (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Friday... 24 hr is a good "we are serious about this" block. If the message doesn't sink in and copyvio's continue to be posted, I would probably indef block pending a discussion with the editor on his/her talkpage where they affirm that they understand the policy and agree to adhere to it.--Isotope23 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll keep an eye on his contributions when the block expires tomorrow. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

24 hours seems reasonable, with possible increases if the user doesn't get the hint. Indefinite blocking should be reserved for serious repeated violations of policy. exolon 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

AFD edit war

This AfD is getting out of hand. User:WATP added a comment insinuating that new account (User:Coeur-sang) was commenting heavily on AfDs involving User:Vintagekits. Vintagekits reverted/removed the comment. It's now turned into a revert-fest. I'm not sure whether 3RR applies to the Wikipedia namespace, but it's gone well past that point, with incivil edit summaries etc. Could someone have a word? Ta. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Users warned for revert warring, if it continues I'll block. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am getting confusing messeges from different admins. Can you please clear up the position.--Vintagekits 18:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seem like different cases to me, should be resolved with check user, SqueakBox 18:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits behavior over the last 24 hours is unacceptable. Looking through his contribs just in the last 18 hours, I count another revert war (he was involved in one yesterday, too, and reported his opponent at WP:AN3), a personal attack on, of all things, what he thought were another's user's sports preferences (for the record, the user in question is not actually a fan of that team), and multiple incivilities [78] [79]. This is all after a stern final warning from me just yesterday. I would like another admin's opinion on a 24 hour block to put an end to this trail of disruption. Picaroon (Talk) 18:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and block, I was unaware of the previous edit war and personal attacks when I gave that warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I almost did it myself until I saw that Ryan had warned, and that was before I knew about the past history. A block seems to me to be in order. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon, how can what I did be wrong yet you said that opposite yesterday. Yesterday you said that Sqweeakbox removed that comment than that was OK, and then when I follow your ruling exactly then I am in the wrong. All I am look for it a little consistancy.--Vintagekits 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How on earth can this be ruled OK but when I do the exact same today its not. All I am doing is following the advice another admin (John) stated on my talk page yesterday.--Vintagekits 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 24 hours. Picaroon (Talk) 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for getting involved in that. One question for future reference - was it wrong of me to make the aforementioned comment? WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 21:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think you were right to flag up what seems to have been a valid suspicion. As someone who has known Vintagekits since his very first edits here, I really hope he can learn to live with other people here and work better with them. I cherish his zeal and commitment to ridding Wikipedia of pro-British PoV (to be honest, as a Scot I often feel the same way), but some of the recent nastiness has crossed a line. If he can't accept that people are people, Wikipedians are Wikipedians, without bringing ethnicity and allegations of bias into every single argument, he needs a much longer break. I genuinely hope this won't go in that direction. --John 04:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard

• EliasAlucard (talk · contribs)
• See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive258#User:EliasAlucard archived today.

Since the expiration of the 24 hour block (as per previous ANB/I discussion linked above), the user is still raining personal attacks. To be more specific (and this is a partial exert): "This is comparable to some Nazi running around and deleting Jewish stubs and Jewish political userboxes."

When told not to engaged in further personal attacks, he responded with a "I'm just pointing out his racist motives."

-- Cat ^chi? 18:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is only trying to get me banned. He's got something against Assyrians and he's resorting to some kind of censorship by trying to get me banned for speaking up about his motives. He's running around on Wikipedia and he's trying to get everything about Assyrian related stuff deleted (example [80]). We got a dispute here, and I'm not the one out of line. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:20, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

When told not to engaged in further personal attacks, he responded with a "I'm just pointing out his racist motives." - What's wrong with that? If I believe that you have racist intentions in what you're doing, am I not allowed to point that out? EliasAlucard|Talk 21:28, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, I had hoped that 24 hours would have been sufficient. Please calm down. You are accusing an editor of racism - please either provide evidence for these claims or stop making them. Your actions are becoming disruptive; the first thing you did after your 24 hour block was go right back after White Cat, again accusing him of racism. And accusing me of bias. I believe I have now been accused of bias both in favour of and against Turks. Carry on and you will be blocked for a longer period to prevent further disruption. Neil ╦ 22:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images incorrectly deleted on June 6

Would anyone be willing to help me out with a review of fair use images incorrectly deleted on June 6? Some of you may recall that every image with an expired dated disputed fair use tag was deleted on that date, without any review to determine if the deletions were appropriate.

Until June 5, Template:Dated dfu stated that editors should not remove the tag if they address the concern; instead, an administrator should review the editor's effort and remove the tag. Many images were tagged as lacking a fair use rationale on May 31st or June 1st, had fair use rationales added in the next few days but did not have their tags removed, because the tag specifically said not to, and then were incorrectly deleted on the 6th.

Naconkantari stated that he would restore images on request, and he would also manually review his deletions. He stopped editing on June 8 and has not restored images since then, and he never even started a manual review or undeleted any files that were not specifically requested.

Is there an automated way that we can approach the task of reviewing and undeleting these files as appropriate? If not, would anyone be willing to split up the task with me? Depending on how many people would be willing to help, maybe we could divide the task into blocks. TomTheHand 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any automated way to do it, but I'll help out. Just leave me a message on my Talk page with the block you want me to process. --Spike Wilbury 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Death Threat

Resolved

User:Ohmygeoffrey has created an attack page including a threat to kill the subject of it. Please take appropriate action. exolon 19:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)\

This user has no contribs, SqueakBox 19:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The users contribs were deleted. I found them and indef blocked for threats in personal attack articles. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This user should be blocked. If that's what you meant, then great! But if not, then this user should get a indef block. Crap like that is garbage. No need for that nonsense!!!! Throw them out of here! Redsox04 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation of a copyright holder

I came across a page on a NYC artist, Nathan Mellott, on a recent CSD patrol. The page has since been deleted, but images that were uploaded by Bluefortytwo (talk · contribs) remain. These images are the work of the artist, and are tagged with either GFDL release templates, or in some cases release into the public domain templates.

I have contacted the real life Nathan Mellott via email, and he objects to the release of his artwork under these licenses. Will an administrator kindly delete the image contributions in question and indefinitely block the offending user for impersonation and disruption. I will gladly forward the email conversation to an administrator who requests it. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted them all, it appears they have also been dumped into various articles and reverted as appearing as spam for the artists work. I notice from the editors talk the first few were initially given tags not permissible for use on wikipedia, so it looks like rather than work out the proper tagging they just tagged something which works. I'll post a warning and that if they can legitimately release under those licenses they'll need to send in proper permissions. It maybe worth keeping an eye on any further uploads. --pgk 20:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets in voting

• User:Shoopshoop appears to be an account created just to comment and vote for deletions. It has just a dozen or so edits, all related to User:Sexyorge and User:Josmul123 I suspect they are coming from the same IP address to disrupt a vote. The patterrn also suggests: User:Falchamble387 --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest a checkuser--Isotope23 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The rules say, I have to wait for the vote to be closed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)