Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive384

Over-long nonsense article

The newly-created article Really, really, really good quality is a cut-and-paste from elsewhere but is so long (nearly 4Mb) that the system will not let me edit it to put a db tag on. Could someone delete it? JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is copy-pasted from Wikipedia:Glossary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia Mafia"

Heads up, more anti-Shankbone trolling. [1][2][3] With respect to David, put it on badimages? Will ^(talk) 10:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

BBC news article

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Jeff Merkey

Just a notice to ensure admins are aware that Wikipedia is making headlines in the mainstream press. The BBC article here appeared this morning on BBC News Online, one of the world's major news websites (in the top 5 in terms of Alexa ranking), and the story is currently linked from their front page under the tagline "Wiki boss 'edited for donation'". The article itself seems fairly good, actually, reporting the strong rebuttals from Jimmy Wales and the WMF. The article also has a better understanding of our page protection policy and the role of admins compared to previous news reports (ie. saying that it means (in practice) that no-one can edit the page, rather than "only administrators", which had implied that administrators routinely edit protected pages). I've mentioned the news article over at the Wikipedia Signpost tip page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I just noted that at WP:AN. It's Jeff Merkey, whose interpretation of things is not always wholly reliable. I talked to him at length about this, and I thoguht I'd managed to rid him of the illusion that Jimbo had offered him some kind of favour in return for donations, but apparently not. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

An image with a duplicate name has eliminated a previous image

This isn't the place to report this but I couldn't remember where exactly to go. Someone has uploaded an image to Wiki-Commons named Image:CCR.jpg. Problem is there was already an image on Wikipedia with the name CCR.jpg. This image was of the original line-up of the band Creedence Clearwater Revival. Now in the band article infobox... instead of a picture of the four band members the image shown is a scanned document. Can someone send a message over to a Commons admin to perhaps rename the new 'scanned doc' image to something and retrieve the earlier band image. Thanks. 156.34.239.151 (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this was the same image, but placed another I found in commons. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:15, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The commons image has been there for a long time, but was masked from en.wiki, because we had an identically named image. The Creedence Clearwater Revival image was deleted due to an invalid fair use claim, and as such we now see the commons image at that name. The commons image hasn't deleted the image that used to be there. Deletion has deleted that image. Mayalld (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion does tend to delete things. That's one of its caveats. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:18, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Indeed so! The commons image is a complete red herring here. The image that the complainant wants to see has been deleted. The fact that the software now displays another image from commons under this name is neither here not there. Mayalld (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Noticed the replacement image. Problem there is that album covers are only fair-use in the article about the source of the album cover itself. I guess the CCR band page will have to do without an image until someone uploads a proper free-use image. 156.34.239.151 (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Return of a sockmaster

Resolved

ACMEpedia looks for all the world to be related to the sock farm at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gsnguy. The "banned by Jimbo" template at the bottom is his doing. Though THIS incarnation, other than the template, has done nothing actionable, in his previous incarnations he was not a pleasant companion; could we check this new guy's pedigree and utz him if necessary? Thanks....Gladys J Cortez 15:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So nice of him was to admit whose account it was. Blocked. Thanks for reporting, Gladys. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 15:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Eliot Spitzer - please watchlist!

For those living in a cave the past 4 days, the New York State governor in America is about to resign in the next 30 minutes over a major prostitution scandal. The article on him has almost 200,000 views just in the past days. Please watchlist this; it is a possible BLP nightmare: Eliot Spitzer. Lawrence § t/e 15:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me, cavemen are stupid. <so that lawrence doesn't have a heart attack, I admit that this comment used to be something much more offensive.> Equazcion •✗/C • 15:56, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

That's a very inappropriate comment. Please remove it. Lawrence § t/e 15:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is? How so? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:59, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

1) He's a BLP. All BLP subjects are treated with respect, irregardless of their foibles. 2) Advocating vandalism is simply inappropriate. Lawrence § t/e 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarification it was $5,500 per hooker (according to RS). --Fredrick day (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it per WP:BLP and WP:IAR. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with a brain knows I was joking. And if they didn't know, they do now. Aside from the vandalism remark, the rest was a statement of a verifiable fact, not in vio of BLP. I have replaced it (per IAR?). Equazcion •✗/C • 16:06, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Joke or not, it's been redacted again. Do not violate BLP again. We don't joke around with that crap, especially in a super high profile case. Lawrence § t/e 16:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> and telling me I don't have a brain (because of your "joke") is a personal attack. Please stop, Equazcion. You're being pointy, to say the least. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like someone to tell me specifically how this violates BLP. (that was no personal attack either, keeper, let's keep this realistic at least. ) Equazcion •✗/C • 16:11, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Given the context of his scandal, you said his page ought to be vandalized for using prostitutes. If you can't see commentary like this is inappropriate, you don't need to be editing. We don't joke about BLPs in this context. Ever. At all. Lawrence § t/e 16:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I think you already said that someplace. Well I disagree. But enough people seem to be against me, so I'll leave it gone. If enough people asked nicely that would've accomplished the same thing without the drama though, just for future notice. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:30, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

And I asked you nicely, at first, but you chose the drama route. Keeper then redacted it, and you screamed CENSORSHIP! on your talk page. How nicely were we supposed to ask you to remove the BLP beyond "Please remove it"? Lawrence § t/e 16:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

One person's concern wouldn't make me remove it, on the first comment, no. I wanted some explanation first, which I think was a reasonable request. I didn't scream censorship anywhere. You're thinking of other such people who complain abut removed comments. Don't lump us all together now. I've removed my fair share of talk comments too, bub, and heard it all. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:38, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that Equazcion keeps removing the evidence that a BLP violation him was removed here to make a point that he believes he did not violate BLP. I will not revert that again, but lacking that visible evidence makes this entire BLP violation defense by him appear out of context. Lawrence § t/e 16:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, Lawrence is making unfounded assumptions. I am not attempting to destroy evidence :) I'm just trying to replace the attempt at humor with one that couldn't possibly be construed as offensive. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:41, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

People trying to change established discussion is never a good idea, except to remove BLP violations. The entire thread and your defense of the BLP vio previously was taken totally out of context by your simply replacing the "refactored" note with a totally "new" comment made it unclear that you had to be refactored several times. The bigger problem was that you kept reinserting a BLP violation, and then appeared to be sweeping it under the rug. That's not an assumption; it's what happened in the edit history here. Sorry, I don't care for people gaming the system. Lawrence § t/e 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recounting of what happened wasn't assumption, no. Your declaration of the reason for my actions was: "to make a point that he believes he did not violate BLP." That's a pure assumption. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:50, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Rickyrab (talk · contribs) on Eliot Spitzer

Could someone have a word with him ASAP? Calling a BLP <redacted> and ongoing edit summary commentary on the BLP are completely unrequired.[4][5]. I left him a note on his talk page but it does not seem to have helped. Lawrence § t/e 16:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean your repeated dodging of my kind request that you clarify your problem with my comment hasn't helped? What a surprise. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:17, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Are you Rickyrab? This section has nothing to do with you. Rickyrab is a different user altogether. Lawrence § t/e 16:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) :D My apologies, I totally misunderstood. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:26, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No worries, on that. Lawrence § t/e 16:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We've had quite a few mea culpas so far. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get into a flamewar about it. I nicknamed the soon to be ex-governor as a <redacted> twice, I already explained why I did so and what I meant about it, it was meant solely as opinion and not as fact, and I tried to modify my comments to make it understood that I strictly meant that I thought his actions related to the scandal were stupid, but nothing else. The only way I could think of to make that abundantly clear in edit summaries was to make new edit summaries. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ricky, there's such a policy called WP:BLP, and if you violate it once more, you'll be blocked. Your actions are completely inacceptable. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, the term is "unacceptable", first of all, and show me exactly how WP:BLP was violated in the comments section, ok? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. Why would comments section opinions violate WP:BLP? Or how? And why make such a policy to begin with? Comments are often used for opinions. They aren't official, they're not on the front page or anything. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP applies to any and all visible anything on Wikipedia. There is no BLP-free zone here. Calling a BLP another language's name for genitals is as flagrant a BLP violation as you can ever get. Lawrence § t/e 16:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If I could just chime in here, the B stands for biography. So it's reasonable, IMO, that people wouldn't consider discussions to apply there. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:36, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. BLP applies on any page you can see anywhere on "en.wikipedia.org". Lawrence § t/e 16:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

READ the comment: I said it is reasonable for people to think it. They wouldn't necessarily be right. We are not in disagreement and neither of us are wrong. Man, you need to lighten up, seriously. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:39, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

People trying to defend BLP violations in any gaming sense (you before, Rickyrab here) don't engender me to lighten up. But yes, we are on the semi-same page in spirit, perhaps. Laxness in BLP hurts people. Lawrence § t/e 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

...and destroys families. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:46, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• I've blocked Ricky for 48 hours after he restored his obscenities yet again[6]. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Good call, it was needed to prevent further BLP violations. We need to show a good face to the world and that kind of nonsense can't be allowed. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Trolling by User:User:X5up41337ki114xxx

Resolved

 – indefblocked --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

X5up41337ki114xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, in his only edit, basically admitted to being the sockpuppet of two blocked users. Please block him with autoblock on, and consider a checkuser to root out any more socks. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of by another admin... He's been indef blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Itihaaskar (talk · contribs)

I am the user Itihaaskar and I was blocked by requests from Shshshsh (talk · contribs). We we were engaged in a debate on the historicity of Jodhabai being the wife of Akbar. I have been writing that modern historians like Irfan Habib, Harbans Mukhia (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/book.asp?ref=9780631185550) etc categorically dismiss the idea that Jodha was the wife of Akbar. Shshshsh (talk · contribs) on the other hand contends that this is not the case. I requested User ShShShSh many a times to come up with a reference from modern historians to support his POV. Till date he has been unable to do so. On the other hand I provided unanimous agreement of modern medieveal historians that Jodhabai was not the wife of Akbar.

You can see the debate here where Shshshsh (talk · contribs) does not even know the names of modern historians whose reference he wants to overturn by his POV: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jodhaa_Akbar&diff=193312471&oldid=193307992

Even if historians say that such name did not exist, they are just hisotorians. Their opinions do not constitute a fact. Also, there is no sign of them being notable at all. Who are they? Are they prominent?

Then he was told: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jodhaa_Akbar&diff=193460993&oldid=193460581

Please be a bit more serious. Irfan Habib is a well known historian. You not knowing him is irrelevant to this debate.

. . . . .

Leading scholars of medieval history, Irfan Habib, Satish Chandra and Harbans Mukhia, categorically dismiss the idea that Akbar had a wife named Jodhabai.

It is high time you show us some references to back up your POV. Otherwise it is blatant POV pushing from your side! WP does not entertain such behavior. Sorry.

Till this date he has not shown us a single reference from a peer reviewed historian that Jodha is the wife of Akbar.

Yet he wants to own the aricle and wants to have only his POV be written:

Even now the article tries to give an impression that movie is "historically accurate" when infact the name in the title itself, Jodha, is historically false.

Mediveal historians have consensus that Jodha was the wife of AKbar's son as the genealogical records from the house of Marwar (the princely house in which she was born) clearly indicate: http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/ips/j/jodhpur.html

• 20 Raja UDAI SINGH 1583/1595, born 1539, married and had issue, 17 sons and 17 daughters. He died 1595.
  • Rajkumari Man Bai (renamed Taj Bibi but better known as Jodha Bai), married 1588, Shahzada Salim (later Padshah JAHANGIR, Emperor of Delhi), born 1569, died 1627. She died 1603.

I have a couple of questions:

• a) Can a user write there POV without citing a single reference?
• b) Can you get others blocked because you are friends with some powers that be?

I have only edited from my IP address and my user name yet I cannot edit using my username for last many days.

What should I do?

124.125.208.35 (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you asking admins to do / look into here? Orderinchaos 10:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the taking away of my editing privilege justified? Secondly please guide how to deal with a person who does not cite any peer reviewed references and just wants to write there POV as is the case with Shshshsh (talk · contribs).

124.125.208.35 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Reblocked for sock evasion. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean sock evasion? I hope you understand how DHCP works. ISP's provide you a dynamic IP address in internet cafes. 124.125.208.* is what I get assigned. I cannot control the last octet. This is really high handed ness on your part to keep accusing me of sock puppetry. 124.125.208.35 (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone else please look into why Blnugyen is blocking me repeatedly? 124.125.208.35 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted material

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

---

At MFD now. -_Haemo (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Justinm1978 nommed User:Allstarecho/scouts for deletion. After Justin's canvassing (here and here) and User:Dreadstar's speedy closal, it was deleted. No problem, I'll take that issue to DRV. The problem I have here, and am requesting that be restored, is Dreadstar's further deletion of User:Allstarecho/cfireusa. I created this second userbox during the MfD as an alternative to anyone who had an issue with the first one, so it wasn't created as a WP:POINT issue nor was it created to cause disruption, which Dreadstar has threatened to block me for. The second box does not "attack" anyone or any organization and does not even mention the Boy Scouts of America. Dreadstar was out of line for deleting it as G4: Recreation of deleted material. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Except for the very prominent Boy Scouts logo with the cross through it. If I made a userbox that said "This user supports anti-Imperialism and an end to war" with a big US flag with a cross through it, would that be considered divisive? Would it be considered materially different from a userbox which says "This opposes the US imperialist war machine"? --Haemo (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not the Boy Scouts logo or else it wouldn't be hosted on Commons as a free image. So what happens if I create it again without what is perceived to be the Boy Scouts logo? Will Dreadstar still block me for "disruption"? I mean, seriously, he is out of line for deleting the second version. It doesn't mention the Boy Scouts of America anywhere in it. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What did the second version say? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're an admin, you'll be able to see both versions. The first one made reference to supporting Campfire USA instead of the BSA because of the BSA's homophobic policy. The second one did not mention the BSA at all. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the gold BSA logo (minus the eagle, but absolutely recognizable), the rainbow flag, and the text "This user supports Camp Fire USA because they do not discriminate against gay members and leaders. The claim that it "doesn't mention the Boy Scouts of America" is technically true, but the logo is clearly recognizable (despite the lack of the eagle). --Haemo (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me, then, that many of the arguments for deleting the first userbox would also apply to the second userbox. I don't see a problem with Dreadstar's actions here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that the second version does not mention the Boy Scouts of America at all, which is why the first one was deleted: as an "attack" on the Boy Scouts of America. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've recreated User:Allstarecho/cfireusa to address the issue of the logo, even though it is not the logo of the BSA and therefore really didn't fall under "recreation of deleted material". The version now does not include that image, and it still doesn't say or link to anything about the Boy Scouts of America. Therefore, it is not in violation of any policy now nor is it recreation of deleted material as it is substantially different than the originals. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• While polemic userboxes of any sort never fill me with delight, that one looks OK now. No doubt, this being wiki, someone will take issue with it though. Black Kite 07:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is the "because..." part. As such, it is an inflammatory and divisive userbox, and I really thought we had gone beyond that. Wikipedia is not a social network or a venue for advocacy. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I understand where you are coming from, but you would need a pretty massive change in Wikipedia to do that. There really isn't a logical difference between "I support the Salvation Army because of the work they do helping the poor" and "I support the Campfire Girls because they don't discriminate against gays". I don't know why editors feel compelled to mention these things at all, but I don't know how you can distinguish them.Kww (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just because lots of things exist doens't make it ok to keep something that is inflammatory and divisive. What prompted the deletion was the author's unwillingness to compromise by either removing it from the Scouting WIkiProject template list because it places one program of scouting over another, or re-word it to be generic ("This user supports "Camp Fire USA") without the polemic statement. He refused to budge, so it went to MfD, where it was speedy deleted. I haven't decided if I'll be putting the replacement up for MfD or not yet, as it is still divisive and using a logo in a userbox that wasn't designed for a userbox. I'm hoping that the creator will wisen up that not everything has to espouse an agenda and do the right thing, but failing that, I'll probably be nominating it for deletion in a day or two. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• And I'll probably be recreating it in a day or two as well. Firstly, there's no policy that says you can't use a free image in a userbox. Only non-free images. Secondly, the way the box is now, there is no attack on any organization, nor is there anything divisive in it. It says I support Camp Fire USA because they do not discriminate against gay members and leaders. Period. That's all it says now. Nothing wrong at ALL with it. Don't wikilawyer with all this "othercrapexists" just to make sure you get your way in the end. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• You have been quite uncivil with all of this. Just as you are using the avenues afforded to you to reverse deletion, I have the same right to use the avenues afforded to me, and will continue to use those so long as I have options. I expect that you will do the same, since you bothered to bring this to ANI. Suddenly I'm a wikilawyer because I'm citing policy rather than trying to bullty a personal agenda, and then go to the admins when I don't get my way? WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is there for a reason. Perhaps you should spend less time pushing your personal agenda and a little more time understanding policy and collaborating to make Wikipedia better? Just a thought. Justinm1978 (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing at all inflammatory and divisive about saying one supports an organization because it does not practice discrimination. DuncanHill (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The current version is neither inflammatory nor divisive. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The current version is fine and should remain undeleted. Careful, Justinm1978, to avoid the appearance that you are crusading against this users personal viewpoint as expressed on his page - such expressions are commonplace, and not disruptive solely because you disagree. Avruch ^T 20:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User is entitled to at least a small userbox expressing his viewpoint/ personality. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The appearance of a "crusade" has manifested at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allstarecho/cfireusa, which I request to be speedily kept just as the first one was speedily deleted. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 00:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Gonezales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As I am fairly sure that I will have no luck in reverting Gonezales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I am bringing this to the noticeboard ahead of time. It would be appreciated if someone could have a word with this user about WP:NPOV. See my note on his talk page for an example. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps I will; it appears he was already reverted once, and would have to break 3RR in order to continue. Consider this thread closed unless a) 3RR is broken, or b) someone would like to give an explanation anyway for the quite-likely next-time. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps someone should have a chat with you about not deleting encyclopedic material. Please note that the other editor who initially erased the section immediately reverted themselves. --Gonezales (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

~Yawn~. If you can't see why your edits violate the neutrality provision, and are thus decidedly not encyclopedic, then you'd probably be better off not editing here at all. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well excuse me for putting you to sleep - however you really need to take a chill pill and refresh yourself on policy, especially Assume Good Faith. --Gonezales (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, those two sections you're adding pretty blatantly violate neutral point of view. The first one is sourced to an opinion piece, so that's inappropriate for citing unattributed opinions right off the bat, and for the second paragraph you must be reading Bush's mind, because that source you give definitely doesn't say that. I'd suggest you stay off topics you have strong feelings about, as the only other way for this to end is your being blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was an opinion piece, there are a hundred other references that it could be replaced with, and your reading of the second article seems a bit odd. The purpose of my edits is not to express an opinion, but to find the truth. --Gonezales (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on the content of the edits themselves at the GWB talk page (rather than splitting discussion) is encouraged. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, not to mention Gonzales's blatant vandalism. DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Good faith edits are not vandalism. I have never vandalized any page. Gonezales (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion: Harrassment and Edit Warring

Resolved

 – Appears to be an incident by a user who has now been blocked for socking

Rudget. 11:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This person is accusing me of "sockpuppetry." I wasn't even sure what it was until now. He is edit warring on anti-Americanism and in order to "win" his war now he is using accusations like this. He is blocking warning templates that say people are concerned whether the article is encyclopedic even though it is OBVIOUS people are expressing that concern. He is threatening to block people for edit warring but if you look at the history he had made 3 reverts just today. He says I am "taking over reverts" well the last time I looked at the page it was blocked from editing so I stopped looking. Also people were being rude and I was getting mad, so I decided to take a break. This person is making up accusations to harrass and intimidate me out of editing on wikipedia. Rachel63 (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the people at that article are against the particular warning tag in question. I wasn't the person who brought up the sockpuppet possibility, I just filed the report. As for edit warring, Rachel63 has violated 3RR on this article (her suspected sock nearly did, but not technically yet since < 3 reverts). I'm not sure what the point of this ANI is. I'm sure checkuser will sort everything out one way or the other. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:36, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

PS. I certainly haven't harassed anyone, and I'm not trying to intimidate or stop anyone from editing. I'm just expressing a concern. If it turns out to be wrong, then you won't hear from me again Rachel, I assure you. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:43, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

It's been concluded that this user is a sockpuppet of User:Bsharvy and both have been blocked indefinitely: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:51, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Bsharvy has requested a checkuser and I encourage you to request one. --Pixelface (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tortugadillo

NOTE: This has been moved from the WP:AN board, it seems a better fit here. I have notified User:Tortugadillo about the move. Redrocket (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Tortugadillo appears to be taking ownership of the Hoofer Sailing Club article. He has made quite a few edits in the last 24 hours, and is adding a great deal of criticism to the article. That's obviously not a problem, but his source appears to be a mailing list from the University of Wisconsin. Here's a few of the quotes and references:

"In 2005, in response to ongoing complaints about mismanagement and abuse at Hoofers, a Sailing club BOC member proposed a new Code of Ethics. However, the proposal was ultimately defeated when the Sailing Club president voted against. [7]"

"The Head of Instruction is hired (and re-hired) by the club's governing body, the Board of Captains (BOC), some of whom are paid staff. They in turn are hired (and re-hired) by the head instructor. It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. [8]"

"It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. [9]"

I have opened up a discussion about the validity of this source on the article's talk page, and also on the Sources noticeboard [10]. However, User:Tortugadillo has not responded in any form of discussion.

In addition, he has repeatedly marked any other edit that removes his text as vandalism, as seen here [11] [12] [13] [14]. At this point, he's also in violation of WP:3RR. I warned him about this prior to his last revision, and he responded with a threat to me on my talk page [15].

The RS board doesn't seem to be heavily trafficked and this matter spills over into other wikipedia issues, so I thought I'd bring it here. I won't enter into an edit war over it, but I'd like to see what more experienced editors think on the matter. Thanks in advance. Redrocket (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: While I was posting, he did respond to the RS board here [16], then left a message on my talk page calling me a vandal and threatening to have me banned. [17]

• Wow. Redrocket seems to have a strongly vested interest in this article. I don't know what he means by "taking ownership", though, because others, e.g. Fleetcaptain, have made far more edits than i have in recent weeks (check the history page). The real issue is this: Redrocket, Fleetcaptain, and others are Hoofer leaders who want very much to use WP as free advertizing for the club and so must make it sound as wonderful as possible [refs to be added]. I have added some criticisms--as have others--but these are consistentl being removed by others. In fact, i've tried hard not to be overly critical, and i've documented the criticisms better than the rest of the article. As for threats to have Redrocket banned from posting, i'm not sure if what he's done is vandalism or not. Repeatedly reverting my posts..? If that's not vandalism, then certainly nothing i've done could be considered vandalism. I'll try to add some refs/links here tomorrow when i have more time. Thanks. (Tortugadillo (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

I won't use this board to continue the discussion, but I should correct the above statement by saying I have not, and have never had any connection to this article before tonight. I also haven't repeatedly reverted his edits, I removed a bit of WP:OR (that has since been taken down by another editor). I reverted it again when he referred to me as a vandal, and I have left it alone since then so as not to participate in an edit war. Redrocket (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Related

See my related interactions with Tortugadillo, there would seem to be a trend.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743#vandalism?
• User talk:Jeepday#Is Jeepday a Wikipedia Administrator?
• User talk:Jeepday#What's vandalism..?
• User talk:Jeepday#Re: Wisconsin Idea

Jeepday (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I just removed a personal opinion and conclusion by user:Tortugadillo from the Hoofer Sailing Club article. Tortugadillo must learn that in order to make such edits, he/she must cite reliable sources who are making the claims. Corvus cornix_talk 21:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And Tortugadillo restored it. I have re-removed it and put a uw-2 level warning on his page. Corvus cornix_talk 21:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Natalizumab

The Natalizumab page, which other contributors and myself had worked on extensively over the last several months (not to conventional perfection but the CONTENT was balanced), was completely gutted later in February, largely by WLU, a contributor who has seniority. I honestly thought it was vandalism, which may have inflamed matters. A discussion has ensued daily since March 1st on the Talk:Natalizumab page, where WLU referred to "myriad Wiki policies", despite the fact that he had in making his first ever edits (including deletions of sections) to the page, had totally ignored the Talk page including an earlier comments' section lamenting skewed/useless historical content on the page. When this was pointed out to him, it resulted in an expletive by reply (which he later redacted off the page).

Specifically, after minimizing other content, he had then created a huge "History" section, more than half of the entire Wiki page, but barely relevant. His authored first line of this History section describes, not the unmet need nor the clinical development and approval, but the drug's withdrawal from availability due to a fatal adverse-event (AE). What is most revealing then is this revision - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalizumab&diff=191684328&oldid=191682516 - where he aded this same fatal-AE content into the very first few lines of the Wiki page, such that it reads like a page from one of those ambulance-chasing-attorney web-sites.

Once the discussion started on the Talk:Natalizumab page, others (3 or 4 posters) weighed in and stated that the Page needs to show more of what the Drug actually does – and no-one supported WLU’s obsessions. However, he has continued to show great “diligence”, subsequently creating new sections and exaggerating the most trivial potential for adverse events. You can read about the discussions on the Talk page.

In the last few days, he has again edited the introductory words of the Page to lead off with the “deaths” story - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalizumab&diff=197451436&oldid=197370088

TO THE POINT: I wrote on the Talk:Natalizumab page yesterday: "I say you are consistently desecrating the page by repeating safety issues in FOUR (4) different sections (introductory words, interactions, contraindications, and history) - all without precedent on Wiki - while at the same time minimizing the perception that this is a medical advance by subordinating the proven benfits to a difficult-to-read paragraph - and despite the WP:3O's offered on this Talk page." - and also I wrote, for the 2nd time, that he should show me "ONE drug treating a serious progressive disease for which the Wiki, in its introductory words, has your standard of profiling potentially fatal AEs"

However, he has replied with fresh expletives this morning - this time as yet unredacted.

CONCLUSION – Maybe he doesn’t have a COI in the normal sense, but he gives an enormous perception of an agenda to make the Wiki page inaccurate and inconsistent with the precendents used in this area of Wiki. And this Wiki page will always be a bad one until he is banned from editing it.io-io (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I see this as a content dispute, but would welcome comment from any admins in case I am indeed making an error. And to respond:

• I did indeed refer to many policies. I try to do so as much as possible as they are the bedrock from which pages are written. It's a point of pride for me. For instance, WP:LEAD, which says that those first few lines should summarize the salient points of the article below, according to their weight.
• The Natalizumab#History section is currently two short paragraphs. I initially put a large chunk of text in that section because I was at a loss for other places to put it, but have since trimmed it to its current length by wording changes and moving information to other sections (and several other editors have also trimmed and altered the section)
• In response to many of Io io editor's comments, I have made further edits to the page - when concern was expressed that insufficient weight was given to the drug's effectiveness, I adjusted the lead twice ([18] and [19]). When Io stated I had removed lengthy quotations on the mechanism of action, I wrote, referenced and wikified two new sections on the mechanism of action of the drug ([20]). I have attempted to respond to the concerns of Io in a neutral, productive way, despite what I feel to be a failure to AGF on his/her part. And I've sworn twice - once redacted and today to express frustration (unredacted)
• No actual WP:3Os were given - there are other editors involved and they ventured some opinions. A WP:RFC might be appropriate given the multiple editors, but since I think I have been responding, with reference to policy, to Io's concerns, I don't really see a need for one. But Io is free to do so.
• In regards to the fatalities, the drug was pulled off of the market for over a year due to its association with Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy when used in combination with interferon. It was later re-approved. This is reflected in the history and interactions section, and in the lead. I think this is appropriate, since it is unusual for a drug to be pulled, then replaced. Wikipedia is not a Merck manual, so it requires more than just the medical and biochemical information, history is also important.
• Regards to the concerns expressed about balance, I believe Io is referring to this section, which is nearly a year old. Though it might be this section. I don't have much to say, when a pubmed journal says the drug is effective, and it comes to my attention, I try to edit this into the page. I'm less likely to do so when it's a company's material sheet - that information should come from a peer-reviewed journal anyway, so I'd rather cite the original source. Though this section and this section both have the clinical benefits of natalizumab in them. Though some of the references are to news stories rather than pubmed citations, which bothers me (per WP:MEDRS).

If any admins or other editors reviews my contributions and finds them problematic, I would appreciate the feedback as I am finding it increasingly difficult to be civil and objective. I don't believe I am editing tendentiously and I am trying to AGF, but this is difficult when I'm constantly accused of having an agenda. But I do make mistakes and try to fix them. I'm not perfect. WLU (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the phrase 'An Agenda at Work' from the header, since headers are expected to be neutral in a dispute per WP:TALK. User:io io, if you have a content dispute on this page, I urge you to pursue dispute resolution. For example, you could open an article WP:RFC on a specific issue. I'm sympathetic with WLU's work, since he has a history of working out compromise solutions in hotly contested areas. The tone of your commentary at Talk:Natalizumab is starting to strain the assumption of good faith. Enthusiasm for the drug seems to be making you critical of the other editors working there. Such well-known desperadoes as User:Fvasconcellos and User:Jfdwolff have recently edited the article, and I hope they will join the discussion here. If it's just a matter of sorting out the facts and evidence, I don't see why that can't be done calmly. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, will everybody just relax. Io io, please refrain from making statements such as "this Wiki page will always be a bad one until he is banned from editing it". You are both clearly compromising here, and there's no need for that kind of comment. This is a content dispute, and I do not believe administrative intervention is required here. Since more opinions have been requested, I'll comment at Talk:Natalizumab. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed the 'banned' comment. That does irritate me, more than a little. WLU (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're doing a good job staying civil in general, given the tenor of the discussion page. I've offered the editor a cup of tea, and I'll be happy to help work on the content issues on the page. You can also ask Jfdwolff and Fvasconcellos, though I think they might already be on the case. Since User:Io io editor is a relatively new editor, I don't think there's a need for administrative action unless there's a continued insistence on making things personal. MastCell ^Talk 23:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that there is no need for admin action for either myself or Io - a complex misunderstanding. WLU (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

1. This is not new, it has being going on daily for 10-12 days now. I had already seen dispute resolution, and had initially approached then-recent posters (like Jfdwolff), as the process suggests, and although deferential to someone they already knew from Wiki, their comments clearly supported the idea that the page should be more informative, and should be revised along the lines I had suggested - see Talk:Natalizumab - see also edit descriptions. And so I thought dispute resolution was long past over.

2. I do not buy that WLU rigorously followed Wiki standards...his deletions, among them some major ones, have shown no respect for the time people put into the page, contrary to the WP:5P, and in no way was the January version un-balanced. Also...in particular look on the N Talk page for the discussions of 5th March, he had deleted wholsesale (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalizumab&diff=191417325&oldid=189832138 - note that this initial deletion was without preservation or para-phrasing of ANY of my material) my work quoting the titles of medical presentations as adding "little to the page beyond the promotion of the drug"; (and see also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalizumab&diff=191684328&oldid=191682516 where he deletes two FDA statements, one clearly explaining what the Black Box warning means, the other defining the FDA recommendations for Tratment); whereas, to give skewed relevance to the most trivial safety issue, he himself added this FDA "authoritive" quote a few days later (see at end) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalizumab&diff=197120465&oldid=196938151 - so much for the Manual of Style, the means justifies the ends.

3. And now to the central issue - I would ask that Wiki Admins please focus on content first, and editors second, because what follows is what I just wrote on the N Talk page, and most of this is a repeat, as it has been ignored....

WLU wants to condense ... the benefits into a single paragraph and elsewhere litter the page with death-potential - because death-potential is what appears in FOUR (4) different sections.

And this is what I wrote, now for the 3rd time, and I ask you for an answer, just ONE example:

"You are applying Wiki standards selectively here. May I direct you to - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bestselling_drugs - can you show me just ONE drug treating a serious progressive disease for which the Wiki, in its introductory words, has your standard of profiling potentially fatal AEs? (For example, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trastuzumab, it is very hard even to spot the safety concern ANYWHERE on the page)"

"Or choose from the PML page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_multifocal_leukoencephalopathy, which you yourself have editted to actually duplicate N's listing as a cause, and reveal application of the same standard? For example, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infliximab, which has a long list of safety concerns, many deadly, and none appear in the introduction."

In short...I believe the page should be treated like any other Wiki pharma page.......why is that a problem?

4. Right, what happens next, do I have to move this to that other "Disputed Content" page ?...io-io (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Naerii

Resolved

 – AGK § 19:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I'd just like a review of my recent block on Naerii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and editor who's contributions have recently included, to take but one example, nominating the ArbCom for an MfD. Any comments welcome. AGK § 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the consensus forming at User talk:Naerii#Your account's editing privileges have been revoked that the block is inappropriate. Cool down blocks are contrary to policy; see WP:CDB. GRBerry 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think this should be considered a cool down block - there's some disruptive editing involved, but I agree it doesn't warrent a block. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk - I believe the block is excessive. Naerii has participated in some trolling, but she also has some extremely useful contributions on this, and her previous account that certainly should be taken into effect. I think an immediate unblock is in order with a warning about expected standars here. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your opinions, folks. Whilst the block was not a cool-down block (N.B., I've been publicly against those in the past), I do believe it was necessary: as one who took to browsing User talk:Naerii would observe, it has prompted some admission from Naerii, that her(/his?) contributions have been disruptive, and that that has to be remedied; hence, an agreement has been reached, whereas Naerii has indicated that she will refrain from disruptively editing the project. To that end, I'm willing to (and, for the public record, have) lift the block, in the spirit of WP:AGF and second chances. AGK § 19:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection on Bharatiya Janata Party

Resolved

Some nut with a dynamic IP keeps readding a hateful spiel to the article on this Indian political party. Most of the recent history of the article is people reverting him. These edits reverting him show the particular quality of what's being added... it ends "Electing this dirt to power would certainly endanger the existence of this world and lead to its destruction." [21] John Nevard (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct place for this is WP:RFPP but the pace of vandalism is not at present enough to justify protection. Please report if it gets worse. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose account hijacking Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

Resolved

This was posted on the NPOV board, but since then the editor is on a tear, ripping through the article and deleting sourced info, etc. and basically taking ownership. Editor Gni is apparently a single purpose account intent on inserting the POV of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America in a handful of article, including that one. This editor has been edit warring over formulations in the article, belligerently replacing well sourced phrases such as the organization being "pro-Israel" and supporting boycotts with PR phraseology lifted from the CAMERA website. While CAMERA (or any organization) may certainly wish to portray themselves a certain way, for tax purposes or for whatever reason, an encyclopedia describes an organization based on what reliable sources say. Ther article also has a section Accusations of anti-Israel bias made by CAMERA, comprised of a selective list of such accusations against NPR, major media, Steven Spielberg, etc. Gni keeps deleting balance added to this section (specifically, a response from NPR's ombudsman) with the somewhat idiosyncratic (and WP:OWN) claim that "This section isn't for comments about CAMERA."

An outside look at this would be appreciated. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is this on AN/I? Bstone (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He likes the drama. --Calton | Talk 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Abusive edit sumaries

169.232.119.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• "added a fucking reference to the article about new year eve"
• "fucked up on the edditing a third time. Should be all fixed now..."
• "fucked up on the dititng"

--Hu12 (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also clear that English may not be his first language so may well be used to a more informal style of discourse without fully understanding how others may take it. However, his edits look good, and all I propose is to leave a gentle warning on the talk page; however, he may well use a different IP later, so will not see it. Don't see what else we can do, there is no obvious policy breach here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is something wrong with the signatures here? *confused* -- Naerii · plz create stuff 00:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Same... Tiptoety ^talk 00:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Bloody edit conflicts! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Brody, Kyle and Lucas

As the username implies, User:Brody, Kyle and Lucas is an account which purports to be used by three people identified on their userpage. I have warned the user(s) on their talk page that sharing an account is a violation of policy and that they should each register separate accounts. Should the shared group account be blocked? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If they don't start separate accounts, yes. This causes GFDL problems. I suggest we wait & see. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Gothic rock and User:Breathtaker

Breathtaker (talk · contribs) was confirmed by Checkuser for abuse at Gothic Rock. The user removed the Gothic Rock genre from Cruxshadows, and after the user was sanctioned, it was followed up by 87.122.43.191 (talk · contribs). I've protected Gothic Rock for 1 week and may extend that to 1 month based upon this comment. The Checkuser case was from November 2007 so this is not a short-term issue. I've also protected many of the various IP addresses that are obvious socks of Breathtaker for 1 month based on contribution histories such as this.

What course of action can be taken here? Outside of protecting the pages, I'm afraid that this abuse will only continue post-block. Since this is not a rather new issue and has been ongoing for months, perhaps a range block is necessary? seicer | talk | contribs 02:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And based on the vandalism at my talk page (and user page), the IP addresses are changing literally every few minutes. I've also semi-protected L'Âme Immortelle for similar abuse. seicer | talk | contribs 02:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on WHOIS, it's a shared IP range (87.122.0.0 - 87.122.255.255). I would try to request blocking the range since he is coming back on 87.122.*.* Blocking them one by one is a tedious task. you would have to block 87.122.0.0/16. Momusufan (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Disregard for blocking policy (II)

On the 28th of January, I was blocked [162] by William M. Connolley, with whom I was involved in a content dispute at the time. I pointed out [163] that he had breached blocking policy, specifically:

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."

On the 5th of February, I asked for an undertaking that this breach would not be repeated, and then on the 8th I asked again. I'm still waiting. This is the second time I've become involved in a content dispute with a block-happy administrator, and it's not getting any more pleasant.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want it to happen again, I suggest you cease inserting content without sourcing, and heed administrator warnings. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC) William M. Connolley did not breach the blocking policy and was not involved in a content dispute with you. Just because an admin reverts you does not automatically make you untouchable. You were blocked because you continued to repeatedly revert and insert unreferenced text despite having been warned several times. Nothing wrong here. Shell babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. This request is ridiculous. Shell babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Connolley was involved in a content dispute with me. He still is, and it's not the only one. I have linked to a plethora of outside sources, only to be told that I was doing too much unnecessary referencing. Automatically assuming admins are in the right at all times do neither of you any favours.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at the specifics, this is a rediculous interpretation of policy. If correct, a user could become exempt from being blocked by vandalising each admin' s talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Undoing the work of a disruptive user is NOT a content dispute. I see no evidence of that here. Admins, and indeed ANY editor, is within their rights to stop disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

An admin has the right to prevent further vandalism of his/her user page(s). Bearian (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time you've brought this up on WP:AN/I ([22]). Last time you didn't get the answer you wanted; asking the same question again a week or two later is forum-shopping at best and WP:POINT at worst. You've had your feedback. Continuing to hunt for the response you want is disruptive. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly when does this:

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."

apply? Each of you seem to be taking Connolley's assertions at face value. I'd prefer if you had a closer look.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your concern has been addressed in several forums by a number of uninvolved administrators. It would seem that most or all have actually reviewed the incident in question. Continuing to push the same issue in different forums in hopes of getting a different answer is disruptive and inappropriate and is highly unlikely to have the effect you desire. If there is a major issue with abuse of admin tools, consider WP:RfC, which is the normal mechanism for dealing with such things. If you continue to forum-shop this in inappropriate venues, you'll end up being blocked for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the comments above (e.g. those relating to vandalism of user pages) tell me that, far from having "...actually reviewed the incident in question.", they haven't the slightest clue of the what the dispute concerns. I don't understand your references to "different forums", I've brought the issue to the attention of admins here and nowhere else. I refer you to the excerpt of blocking policy above. How can it not concern an administrator with whom I am still involved in a content dispute with? (See Shell to Sea.)

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Christopher Mann McKay

Resolved

 – PER WP:BOLD WP:NOT#CENSORED Nothing to see here -- move along

Can someone please explain how this user page is not polemical and a violation of WP:USERPAGE. I have tried to have it MFD'd once before yet was howled down and blocked for doing so. I still do not see how this helps create an environment of encyclopedia building. Prester John (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is completely against WP:UP policy. It's completely offensive, and potentially disruptive if the user wishes to edit regularly. Be WP:BOLD and delete on sight. If anything, I'll nominate it for WP:MFD if there is a problem. I personally am not offended, however WP:SOAP. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that a MFD exists [23]. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Christopher Mann McKay, Prester John nominated this, 3 months ago. That discussion was speedy closed as keep and Prester John was blocked for point disruptions. Metros (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What were the other cases of point disruption besides the MFD? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't recall the surrounding context right now. But if you're interested, explore his edits and the history of his talk page for early December 2007 to see what else was up. Metros (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Prester John's userpage was MfD'd (I won't go into why, don't want to rehash, but there was ample cause, at least in the opinion of many involved). In response, he MfD'd quite a number of the uerspages of people who had raised the concerns about his userpage. Completely POINTy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The only thing that troubles me is how several of the userss said it wasn't illegal to burn the flag. I'm not entirely sure that's the issue, or was the issue. And if it was, it's erroneous. However, wikipolicy is still wikipolicy. And according to user page policy, anything that is likely to cause widespread offense is deemed inappropriate. Just my two cents..three or four. I'd advocate asking the user first to remove it though. That would be the better approach. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well at the previous discussion, the page looked like this. The flag was just a smaller part of the user page. Also note that the basic reason for deletion was that it, according to Prester John, displayed the flag which is an illegal act (which is not true). It's just like his calling WebHamster's image child pornography without any factual basis or truth. Metros (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right that discussion was erroneously snuffed out after 20 minutes and 4 votes. I believe it was kept in error and warrants input from the wider community. The "keep" votes in that archive never detailed 'how' this page is in line with WP:USERPAGE and why this does not qualify as a "polemic" statement. Prester John (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets please not start this all over again, I see no disruption to the project (other than this thread) , and no violation of WP:USERPAGE, if you dont like it, then dont look at it. Tiptoety ^talk 02:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the userpage should go right now; it is a clear violation of policy, deliberately meant to provoke and insult. The WebHamster incident is in no way relevant. IronDuke 02:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then are we going to remove the image from this userpage as well? Tiptoety ^talk 02:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost curious if PJ will be complaining about every user page that may so offend his overly strict definitions? At least he hasn't started forum/admin shopping about this bit yet. seicer | talk | contribs 02:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's all quite amusing given the previous battles over his own polemical userpages and userboxes in times past. Orderinchaos 10:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not polemical because it is not an argument "written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach". In this case, the argument is contained in a visual representation of an activity which the United States Supreme Court has ruled is a valid expression of free speech, in Texas v. Johnson. The issue as far as Wikipedia is whether it prevents cooperative editing, and that is a subjective test. The fact that you find it offensive is neither here nor there; you are not compelled to view that user page, and the overall impression I get is that you continue to make these points as retaliation to the deletion of your own user page some months ago. I suggest you move on and edit some articles, if that's what you're really here for. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's all look at the relevant part of user page policy [[24]]. And I quote from the policy; "There is broad consensus that you should not have any image on your userpage that would bring the project into disrepute (per Jimbo Wales), and you may be asked to remove such images". Do you guys really believe that this image does not bring the project into disrepute? If you honestly do believe it, would you hold onto this principle if I include on my userpage a "Koran being flushed down the toilet" picture? Prester John (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Either is perfectly legal; how would perfectly legal behaviour "bring the project into disrepute"? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

@Tiptoey: absolutely remove it. Political userboxes are an inherently bad idea anyway, but if we have them, let's not allow (literally) inflammatory ones. Rod is right that the test here can only be subjective. I personally find it quite offensive. IronDuke 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This violates the WP:Soap portion of WP:USERPAGE. It's a no-brainer, I think. IronDuke 02:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Then I suggest you send it to MfD to assess community consensus. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Tiptoety ^talk 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as if it's already been sort of deleted. I'm now very confused. See: [25]. Someone clue me in? IronDuke 03:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• The deleted image was hosted here; the one on the user page in question is on Commons. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But the link to the user page image, when I try to edit it, tells me I'm recreating it. Sorry if I'm being dense, appreciate the help. IronDuke 03:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't. If you click on the image on the above user page, it takes you to commons, where the image was moved from here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And what would happen if somebody decided to this is literarily? The username was "BurningtheAmerianFlag!!!". The username would be reported to UAA and then instantly blocked. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the difference is that the username would show up in every edit, whereas the image is only on the userpage, which people are not forced to visit. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"People are not forced to visit" it is not a valid argument for allowing it. That would open the door to pretty much any image, as long as it wasn't a copyvio. IronDuke 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So? WP isn't a soapbox. but WP isn't censored. Seems to me there is a potential conflict there serving those two goals. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why it should go to MfD. This debate is obviously going nowhere. Clearly nobody is keen on deleting the image right now, and it's an issue where consensus should be sought, including, if necessary, clarification of policy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"bring the project into disrepute" - Not at all. WP:SOAPBOX - so far-fetched, it's laughable. And offensive is the most objective word--for me seeing a Wikipedia userpage displaying the American flag not burning is extremely offensive because it is showing that user is proud of a country that is directly responsible more injustice than any single nation on earth. This effort to tell me how large my images can be on my userpage is unnecessary censorship.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 06:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

People love to invoke WP:CENSOR without appearing to have read it. This policy guideline is explicit in describing how it is applicable to wikipedia "Articles" only. WP:CENSOR does not apply to userpages. Let us read from the policy; "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography)" User pages are not protected by these rules and are kept with the will of the community. For McKay to justify his refusal to remove this image as; "the American flag not burning is extremely offensive", is so moronic that it defies belief. Prester John (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Nevermind that then.... I just don't understand what the issues is: the size of the image, or the image itself?—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 06:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We should all be aware of Prester John's biases/opinions/beliefs, and his angle on this issue should be clear (PJ, let's not hash that out, I'm just making clear what is a visible thread in what you've already said). I don't agree. I do not consider this image to be intentionally or fundamentally offensive - offensive to some (e.g. PJ), but not offensive prima facie (and certainly not illegal). Content that is by its nature questionable, illegal, or restricted to certain viewership should not be displayed on userpages - that issue is certainly not universally agreed upon, but if I had a public domain HD (1080p) picture of a penis and stuck it on my userpage, I think I'd get in trouble. Even though this is not comparable to your image, it is still problematic on similar grounds - WP:USER makes it clear that the purpose of userpages is to facilitate building the encyclopedia. While we are given great latitude (using that picture in a userbox, for example), there still has to be a clear indication that your userpage is primarily or deliberately designed to benefit/build the project in some way or another. Up until recently it has, but then you changed it to just this image, which doesn't seem to fit the bill anymore. OH and a note to Prester John: please refrain from making personal attacks like calling people "moronic" - it's not necessary, you can make your point without further inflaming (no pun intended) the situation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I agree this should go to MfD. There's no clear policy here, and no consensus will be gained here that matters. It's a policy dispute, and should be settled officially. For the record, I think making any kind of political statement on here with your user page is kind of silly (including userboxes), but it doesn't bother me. I think it's up to wikipedia to make an official policy, though, on what's offensive. Four years ago, we would have been talking about banning people with "This user listens to the Dixie Chicks" userboxes. Redrocket (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be opening up a hornet's nest - many of our users are not from the same geographical regions or political viewpoints and as such it is likely impossible to satisfy everybody. There's a smell of WP:POINT lingering over all this, anyway. Orderinchaos 10:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Followup

I just reverted a gloating message from Christopher Mann McKay on Prester John's talk page (who is currently blocked over an unrelated issue), in which he claimed "You get to show your support for this unmoral horrible country and I get to show my hate for it--that is how Wikipedia works--get used it to buddy :) :)" Trolling aside, I reckon that statement confirms that Christopher Mann McKay's user page is a blatant case of disruptive soapboxing. Hesperian 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Short of a policy that such is forbidden, though (a quick scan of many people's userpages reveals userboxes or statements which love or hate something that is likely to be controversial to somebody or other) I think MfDs are a better venue to resolve such. Prester himself has been no stranger to such controversy in times past, with blatantly offensive userboxes and the like. A couple of his pages got deleted or redirected at MfD, and in recent weeks he's been making something of a point of bringing any user page which disagrees with his own opinions to AN/I - some of which have subsequently been kept at MfD. As they were previously not issues, and the only reason we're discussing them is their raising here, I tend to agree with the "nothing to see here, move along" closure of this debate. Agree that the gloating merits a block (which I note has been issued) for personal attacks... there's simply no room for that kind of conduct here. Orderinchaos 09:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Sandstein

I need any and all administrator input on the actions of User:Sandstein against me. Most of the discussion is on his user talk page. It all rests on his misunderstanding changes made to the Talk:Lake of Gruyère page by User:Docu who did not understand the wiki guidelines of being able to enter in line item comments (as I did). I also followed up with an edit to ensure his signature to the line items so that no confusion would occur.

Sandstein is threatening me, even after being addressed by another admin (User:Ezhiki), as seen on Sandstein's talk page. I would like further input from other admins as to clarity in this matter.

Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please come down from the Reichstag and take off the spider-man suit. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the Cabal strikes again! KnightLago (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no cabal. And the cabal will ban you if you so much as suggest otherwise. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF? Rarelibra (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein's judgment is pretty sound. The edit he asked you about (which you never directly addressed yourself) does appear to be you editing the meaning of Docu's comment. If your undo was a mistake, you should've said so. If you in-line someone elses comments and they remove it, you should respect that and not do it again. You don't have an inalienable right to interleave your own views with the views already expressed by someone else - many, including me, find that annoying. Otherwise, this is a tempest in a teapot. You weren't blocked, you were warned not to repeat prior bad behavior that seemed to connect with the edit Sandstein posted 4-odd times in the discussion on his talkpage. Avruch ^T 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Biggest thing for me is, I don't take kindly to being threatened. And it is quite clear that he threatened me - twice. All over something that was within my right - whether or not the person liked the fact that I interwove the comments like I did (and like you stated annoyed you)... but is covered in wiki guidelines. His whole beef was about reverting the summation comments that were unjustified after I restored my interwoven comments. But again - I don't take to being threatened if I am not breaking any rules. The edit he posted 4-odd times is his misunderstanding the whole situation. Rarelibra (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the situation that sparked this, no one was blocked, injured, maimed or killed. Let's keep things in perspective and try to find common ground instead of looking for things to argue about (this is meant as a general comment, not directed at anyone in particular here). Let's forget arguing about whether you did or didn't observe the talk page guidelines, and who threatened who. Let's just all agree that we'll observe the talk page guidelines going forward, and move on. MastCell ^Talk 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

One wonders why we don't have a guideline as Wikipedia:Mummy, the nasty man shouted at me!. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Aziz1005

Hello! I'm not sure why were Aziz1005 blocked. He is very useful user in English edition of Wikipedia and Arabic edtion of Wikipedia. I haven't found a checkuser page for him. Is there a valid reason for this action? Please don't lose Wikipedia's users!--OsamaK 20:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the declined block request it was because of WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be at least a minimal effort to demonstrate that accusation, instead of merely stating it? Thanks. -- 128.120.63.210 (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the declined request, a WP:RFCU was performed in conjunction with edit examination. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Even without checkuser request? Anyways.. Be more fixable. English Wikipedia has too many users and you don't care about your user (Maybe). But, remember that your actions in English Wikipedia doing reactions in Arabic Wikipedia. Users who leave English Wikipedia will leave Arabic edtion too!--OsamaK 06:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing talk pages for survey

Resolved

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

Hi xxxxxx. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found http://michael.cs.washington.edu/~wiki/exp/index.cgi . Thank you! Bestchai (talk)

Seems there is some canvassing for a barnstars survey by the user, Bestchai.--Hu12 (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, is this a violation of policy? Should I not post this message on any more user talk pages? This is a pilot study for a class I'm taking. I've posted this message on 23 user talk pages, and am not planning on posting more than 5 more perhaps. Bestchai (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a violation of policy, please take a look at WP:CANVASS, along with this. Tiptoety ^talk 23:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to post it once at some central spot, such as the Village Pump, and link to the page. Corvus cornix_talk 23:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted a controlled turnout as this is meant to be a small pilot study. I won't post any more, and will use the Village Pump in the future. Thanks. Bestchai (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression WP:CANVASS related to violations which impacted editing or voting or other community processes on Wikipedia, rather than what is probably better described as a mass invite which does not itself impact upon Wikipedia. This doesn't fall under any of the five categories of "Types of canvassing" in the above document. Orderinchaos 09:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not canvassing and should not be treated as such. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not disruptive, but...

I didn't really see the need to put this on the sockpuppetry noticeboard, as it's not disruptive, but probably warrants further investigation.

Earlier today, a number of different accounts began editing Grime (music). All of these edits were constructive, but seemed very similar. When I probed further, I found that all of these accounts (listed below) had been created at roughly the same time in January and had (1) edited much the same material and (2) done it at roughly the same time. I contacted these accounts on their respective talk pages, with a message similar to this one:

I noticed that you and several other editors (Marissa22 (talk · contribs), Leorga (talk · contribs), and Eduhkay (talk · contribs)) edit in a very similar manner on the Grime (music) article. None of these edits are disruptive or violate Wikipedia policy that I know of, but they do come from accounts that seem very similar. All were created during a very short period of time (see [26], [27], [28], and [29]), and have edited around the same times ever since. All have edited Grime (music), three have edited Cuban hip hop, and two have edited Reggaeton. I wonder if these accounts may be used by one person, because of the similarities I have noticed. Please respond if I am in error or if you have any comments. --Kakofonous (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

List of users

• Frazydmd (talk · contribs · count · logs)
• Eduhkay‎ (talk · contribs · count · logs)
• Leorga‎ (talk · contribs · count · logs)
• Marissa22 (talk · contribs · count · logs)
• Daedakidd‎ (talk · contribs · count · logs)
• Cohenh (talk · contribs · count · logs)

I did not receive any responses, but, a couple hours after I had last edited Grime (music), another account with a similar edit history to the others edited the article. The problem is that all the contributions of all the accounts seem to be in good faith. Suggestions? Somewhere else I should move this thread? --Kakofonous (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that this looks odd, but if the edits are constructive, there's not really a problem to be dealt with. Unless and until the accounts start editing disruptively, this isn't an issue. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It does seem odd. A week ago something similar, but on a larger scale happened on the Tanzanian hip hop article. 20/30 new(ish, they were mostly about a month old, with most having no more than 20 previous edits) editors added to the article in 1-3 edits each, and in two days of almost constant edits it went from being a redirect to being 43,000 bytes long. While the article doesn't seem bad(perhaps a tad spammish) is still seems strange to me. I brought it up here, and recieved a similar response to what i expected - edits are fine, therefore not a problem. However, with this too, i wonder if its some set of class projects or soemthing.--Jac16888 (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Class projects was my guess. We seem to have had a rash of students recently on the most obscure topics. Orderinchaos 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Christopher Mann McKay #2

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Christopher_Mann_McKay&curid=11186532&diff=197869413&oldid=197858005

"This user believes the world would be a better place if most Americans were murdered :)" -- From User:Christopher Mann McKay. Reverted once on the basis of civility, WP:UP, personal attacks, divisiveness, inflammatory, etc. Anyone else want to have a go? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:06, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted his undo. Pretty much a clear case of WP:DICK. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Disruptive editing including trolling, abuse, incivility, you name it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. I reverted some of his trolling at Prester John's talk page a little while ago too. Clearly no interest in collaborating on an online encyclopedia. Hesperian 02:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, if there is no problem with this users' contributions, it may be more appropriate to simply withdraw the privilege of having a user page, by deleting and protecting it. Hesperian 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That would not deal with his general attitude, which is amply demonstrated elsewhere than on his user page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support Hesperian's proposal. All it would involve is deleting and protecting his user page, and would seem to deal with the specific disruption. Orderinchaos 09:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also removed the image and caption from his user page since it's now obvious to me he was only using it to goad other editors, and that cannot be acceptable. I was prepared to cut him some slack last night but I've run out of patience with him. We just don't need people like that here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User is requesting an unblock. PS. This seems like common sense, but for those users who cry policy when getting blocked for such reasons, I made an addition: WP:UP#What may I not have on my user page? - [30]: "Statements that encourage violence against any person or group." Equazcion •✗/C • 04:05, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Careful with that. Make your wording specific and narrow, otherwise we'll go through a TON of problems with every user who feels that one side or another in a conflict should 'resist', be it Hizbullah or Tibet. ThuranX (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked it to "Statements that specifically encourage violent acts against any person or group". That should include murder etc. but not support of questionable regimes or organizations. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:23, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I believe the block should be shortened to either 72 hours or one week, based on his general lack of prior form (one previous block in December) and his generally helpful edits to Californian topics - indefinite seems a bit extreme and people do get a bit silly in polemical arguments. This appears to be a relatively isolated incident and he should realise that the community does not approve of such conduct, but if he sticks to helpful edits then no further attention need be paid. 09:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, seems it's been resolved. Black Kite unblocked him after extracting a promise the stupidity would cease. Orderinchaos 09:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence does not advocate violence towards Americans in any way, shape, or form. 68.101.199.103 (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Murder is violence. If you say it's good if people die via murder, you are advocating violence. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:58, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

User: Niranjandeshmukh

Background: Let me first admit that I had a small fight with this user few days back. Matter was quickly settled with an advise to me and warning to this user. History rests here.
Issue:Later, while working on my native city's page - Nagpur, on which I am working very very hard for past 2 months, I happened to land on page Katol which is of nearby town. Unfortunately, I found a few images which I thought are copyright violations. These images were uploaded by my not-so-friendly friend. I marked them for speedy deletion, with original source specified, but later user:mecu said they may not be so. See the discussion on our talk pages. After little more discussion, mecu pointed that I mark them at WP:PUI, which I did. A bot and me left message on talk page of Niranjandeshmukh saying please clarify. No images have been ever deleted. All well till now....
Suddenly today - very abusive response came from User: Niranjandeshmukh and later I found this image - check the comments column on this image page. I take this as a very very offensive comment against me. This user has been warned once. I am in no mood of responding to these A-rated comments and so did not demand an apology to forgive him. Instead directly reporting him here for second time. gppande «talk» 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I see other incidents being replied quickly by admins. Am I invisible? gppande «talk» 12:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given Niranjandeshmukh (talk · contribs) a final warning for personal attacks. If he does it again, then blocks are in order. However, your spat with him a few days ago is obviously still a sore point and nominating his uploads for deletion is whacking an already buzzing hive. You might want to disengage from the user for a while. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice. Actually this image was not nominated and deleted by me. I had nominated 3 other images still present on Katol. This image was removed by some bot for lack of licensing information. However, today I noticed the image is again uploaded with this horrible comment. I would certainly want to get that comment removed. gppande «talk» 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what may have gone before, that image summary needs to be edited.DGG (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My impulse is to delete the whole thing and then re-upload the image, but can I then declare the image public domain per the original uploader? The summary is OK, as it stands, but the upload log still has the personal attack - which deleting should fix, because the replacement image would have a new log, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone please do the needful as I have been told to stay away from Niranjandeshmukh. If I nominate it for deletion it would incite him again. gppande «talk» 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, in that it's not worthwhile to continue to engage this user. The image is acceptable under our policies, except for the upload log, which is being fixed. As I advised last week, I'd let it go. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted and reuploaded the image, removing the personal attack from the upload log. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ultraexactzz gppande «talk» 14:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl: Opinions welcome

Is this disgusting, racist link on this user's user page acceptable in Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATharkunColl&diff=197826917&oldid=197826732 Bill Reid | Talk 10:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• No, and I have removed it and warned the user. Black Kite 10:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Further: I had to remove the link three times and threaten a block before TharkunColl stopped reverting it. He then posted on the page instructing people to look back through the page history to find the link. I have therefore wasted more of my time deleting all the revisions containing the link, and am very close to blocking merely for disruption. However, given this user's unwillingness to stop editing tendentiously (the extensive block log, this particular episode, and the image on his userpage being typical), I wonder whether we are approaching the point at which community patience runs out? Black Kite 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way, what's that sockpuppetry show, with this apparent "fan club" of TharkunColl involving ShieldDane (talk · contribs), Trynaa (talk · contribs) etc.? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not racist to express an opinion about an ideology. I have now removed all reference to the link on my user page. I was under the impression that user pages were precisely the place for one's own opinions - apologies if I have been under some sort of misapprehension about that. TharkunColl (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the alleged sockpuppetry? Rudget. 12:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no suckpuppetry. TharkunColl (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflicts) TharkunColl's very lucky a more block-happy admin wasn't around. I was watching the whole thing and waiting to see how far it'd go. He received a two-week block for similar anti-Muslim misdemeanors a little while ago. Having said that, since I think TharkunColl may interpret the community's distaste as an attack on his freedom, maybe it'd help if it was explained to him why such things are unacceptable in wikipedia policy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has no place for racists. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Once more we see an example of a mindless, knee-jerk reaction. Stifle all debate by shouting "racist". Criticism of Islam is not racist, for the patently obvious reason that Islam is not a race. Incidentally, I just happened to notice that you're a member of Wikipedians against censorship. Is there such a thing, I wonder, as Wikipedians against hypocrisy? TharkunColl (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure TharkunColl can really be accused fairly of racism. My take on him as of now is that he is reactionary and strongly motivated by anti-"political-correctness", like many users (e.g. User:Tymek). He does need to review WP:BATTLE, to learn discretion and to respect (and not get annoyed by!) people's sensibilities. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it's possible to be "anti political correctness" (usually just an excuse for being offensive in my experience, but whatever), without having an image on your use page that says "Islam sucks" and a link to a very offensive anti-Islam website. Black Kite 13:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I in no way wanted to imply that I condoned his actions this morning. TharkuColl is overly fond of being needlessly offensive, there's no doubt. He was lucky you didn't block him this time, esp. given that he had received a 2 week block for a similar offense earlier in the year. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, if you had bothered to check the other pages on that site, you might have noticed that they also have respectful and pro-Islamic images of Muhammad, made by Muslims. Saying that "Islam sucks" (even though those words are not actuaaly used, but that's a minor quibble), is no better or worse than saying "Communism sucks" or "Nazism sucks". TharkunColl (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not the point, Wikipedia is not a place for broadcasting your opinion, and please remember to be civil. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite agree that they're equivalent, but equally I don't see any reason for anyone to have either of those sentiments on their userpage either. Why do people insist on trumpeting their prejudices on their userpage? Apart from the fact that no-one really cares, this is an encyclopedia, not Facebook. Black Kite 14:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• The images IMO were not only disgusting but racist in the way they portrayed gross caricatures of Islamists and Mohammed. The link took you straight to those offensive images, not to other images. Tharkuncall said to his disciple that it was a pity the images in question were copyrighted or he would have used them on Wikipedia. Bill Reid | Talk 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Racist? How so? Or by "racist" do you mean "anyone who holds an opinion different from mine who I want to shut up but can't be bothered putting forward any reasonable refutations of his opinions"? TharkunColl (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's be blunt - you have a problem with Islam and you troll pages on that basis, that's clear to me from my very limited interaction with you here. Why else would a long-term editor be suggesting such a junk site as a source? the link discussed here has been removed from the history but I'm guessing it's the same junk site? You believe what you like but keep that shit off here, get a blog instead. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with any ideology that promotes murder, torture, and oppression. Don't you? TharkunColl (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have problems with lots of things but what's that to do with wikipedia? nothing at all. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, apart from the fact that these things need stating, rather being swept under the carpet. TharkunColl (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But the religion in question doesn't promote those things. Some people who belong to it do, but not the religion itself. Some Christians and some Hindus promote those things. That doesn't make their religion guilty of it either. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 14:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the religion of Islam does promote those things - the Koran has numerous passages ordering Muslims to kill the infidel, etc. TharkunColl (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely within your rights to believe that this needs to be stated and not swept under the rug...but that doesn't mean you have the right to state it here. Wikipedia is not the soapbox for you to stand up and shout from. --Onorem♠Dil 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, people are being too sensitive. But then, I'm atheist anyway. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For those with somewhat more open minds on this issue, and who believe Wikipedia should not be censored, here are a few quotes from the Koran:

• "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they.... But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them...." [4:89]

• "Seize them and slay them wherever ye get them...." [4:91]

• "For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.... The unbelievers wish...to assault you in a single rush...." [4:101]

• "The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides....and heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." [5:33]

• "Those who believe, and adopt exile, and fight for the Faith...for them is the forgiveness of sins and a provision most generous." [8:74]

• "...then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war)...." [9:5].

• "Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day...nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth...." [9:29]

• "...fight the Pagans...." [9:36]

• "...wherever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy)." [33:61].

I doubt that pointing out the unwelcome truth is likely to make any difference though. TharkunColl (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh! Soapboxing on ANI - just want we needed. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Merely defending myself against unwarranted accusations of racism and bias. Or isn't that even allowed? TharkunColl (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No-one here is an Umayyad or pre-Umayyad Arabic scholar, so debates about the meaning and background of Qur'anic passages will get the world nowhere! That's not to mention the fact that AN/I isn't the place for such things. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this discussion has gone on long enough, I think it is time to call it an end. TharkunColl, you simply cannot go around trolling on islamic articles, it's not on, ever - regardless of your own opinions, I think some kind of block is in order here, if not for trolling, then vandalism - not being an admin myself, I cannont implement one, any admin willing to issue a block has my support. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl uses almost any pretext to launch a tendentious tirade about Islam: anybody familiar with his block log or disruptive behaviour on Talk:Muhammad can discern that instantly. In all cases, he is as ill-informed as he is a disruptive soapboxer. A block is warranted, but I question how many times this has to happen before the community realises that enough is enough. ITAQALLAH 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since opinions are welcome, after watching this develop for the past hour or so and reading up on the linked pages, I have to say TharkunColl's actions have soapboxing written all over them. The Koran quotes he put up to convince people of the 'truth' really seals it, he goes and digs up everything related to violence in the Koran without acknowledging alternate stances, similarities with myriad religions, or respectable sources/scholars analyzing the quotes. A block may be advisable. Isikari 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Tharky personal page? I think people have over-reacted. However, concerning public articles? their reactions are understandable. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who's interacted with TharkunColl quite a number of times over an extended period, I tend to side with GoodDay in this. Yes, TharkunColl is tendentious. Yes, TharkunColl is abrasive. Yes, TharkunColl is obstinate. But, I don't think TharkunColl is racist (he's quite right that Islam is not a race), and he does indeed seem to believe strongly in the notion of freedom of expression, and who can fault him for that? What I think needs to be made clear to TharkunColl is that throwing out inflammatory idiom is a juvenile way to combat censorship; that his opinions may be put down because they are proven wrong, and not because they're being censored; and that Wikipedia is a team effort wherein one has to be flexible and recognise a fact, even when it contradicts what one has previously been seeing from their own viewpoint. Believe it or not, Thark has actually gotten better than he was before; again, GoodDay is right in that there's a difference between TharkunColl pushing his ideas in articles or talk pages (which he used to do), and doing the same in his own user space (which he has just done). So, I don't know whether a block now would do more harm than good. Perhaps a shorter one? --G2bambino (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the image that said Crescent Moon with a Star Sucks, Not TharkunColl. He just uploaded, had he asked I would have though. Therefore I feel somewhat responsible. It wasn't so much that I was trying to insult Islam, as I was making an image that in my opinion defined some of the beliefs of TharkunColl. I'd like to point out on the same image I had the Coat of Arms of Great Britain with an X through it, in my opinion that shows just as much dislike for that as it does for Islam, however there was no herd of Defenders of the Crown who quickly pounced upon it and gave it some poorly picked term like 'raciest', Perhaps they would have said "Offensive"? Point being, I would hazard a guess that had the crossed out coat of arms been the only image there, the entire image it self would have been left alone, when then the general idea is identical to the Islamic one. Blank Sucks. In which case it appears to me that it is OKAY, for some things to suck and NOT OKAY for others to suck. I find that idea rather suspect in itself, is Wikipedia a qualified paragon of morals, who can easily define what we should like and what we shouldn't? In a world, or indeed a website where many cultures are coming together with all sorts of different upbringings and values, how can anyone decide that they know better than anyone else what is okay to 'suck' and what is not okay to 'suck'? Lastly, I noticed one of the reasons given for it to be deleted was that it is not NEUTRAL, on a NEUTRAL encyclopedia. I agree the statement that ANYTHING sucks, cannot be seen as neutral, I can only imagine the person who said that expected everything on wikipedia, including User pages to only contain sanctioned neutral information. In that case I feel it's important to let you know I have seen many user pages where a user has Liked Something. That's right, you heard it from me first, where they put in a little box "this user likes blank". I feel those statements are just a un-neutral as statements that say something 'sucks'. One is in the positive, and the other the negative, but neither is neutral. Therefore based on the criteria in which the image was deleted, I feel something on nearly every member of wikipedia's user page should also be deleted, since most establish something that user 'likes'. Gotta keep it neutral. ShieldDane (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This user's personal political POV is his own problem. If he is a racist, anti-Islamist or whatever, there's nothing we can do about it, and after all, that's one of the POVs that needs to be described in articles, and that's hard to do correctly without people who actually hold such views.

However, that has nothing to do with what he can or can't have on his user page. We restrict the kinds of things people can put on their user pages, not because of NPOV, as ShieldDane mistakenly believes, but because user pages are there to be used for the good of the project, and not as personal web space. Saying "I like X" is not the same as saying "Y sucks", even if X and Y are diametrically opposed. The first is a neutral description of somebody's personal preference, the other is a disparaging comment on people who hold the opposing view, or even worse, simply happen to belong to the disparaged group because they inherited it from their parents (like race, ethnicity, or religion).

Descriptions of personal preferences are ultimately useful for the encyclopedia - they are good for "community-building" and useful for understanding what a user's concerns are when you debate something with them. OTOH, disparaging comments are bad for community cohesion, and invite nothing but fruitless flame wars. Not to mention links to external websites which contain more of the same.

So, removing the userbox and the link solves the user page problem. If there are other problems with this user's behaviour, they should be looked at separately, and the popularity of his personal POV should not have any influence on the evaluation of his actions. Zocky | picture popups 16:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm not quite done yet. You know almost everything is offensive to someone. I've seen more than a few Wiki pages where a user has stated they are atheist, and even put forth some quotes and reasons why this is so. Many religious people I believe would find that at least somewhat offensive, here is a guy who is saying in his opinion on his user page, that everything you believe in is a lie, and through his quotes and words, you get across the idea that people who do believe in it are fools that believe in magic. Or I've seen pages where a user says they are firmly against something, which in many cases there are people who are a part of what that person is against, in which case the user supporting a cause (perhaps no more 'radical' then American Democratic Party), is saying things which could be found offensive by others (Members of the American Republican Party?), and it seems to me..since you guys are not rushing to cast down these offensives bigots, that it's okay to have something offensive on your page towards someone, since your user page is about your personal opinions and beliefs. In which case, in this case, it seems you guys have dropped the ball. ShieldDane (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Also for those of you jumping on the anti-TharkunColl bandwagon, this noticeboard thing was not created because of TharkunColl trolling topics, it was created FOR what he had on his USER PAGE. ShieldDane (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, quite right, it wasn't, but the image was a direct link to trolling, as was the offensive link removed three times. Regardless of what ever this started as, serious behavioural issues have been raised that IMHO, urgently need to be dealt with, of course, everyone has their opinions, but when they spill out onto wikipedia through pictures, links, trolling and vandalism something needs to be done. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Then why not an uproar over the crosses through the British Coat of Arms? ShieldDane (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about the trolling, vandalism, POV Pushing and other such distruption, not the content of the picture. The picture is deleted, gone for ever, thankfully. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that is what this article was created for, TharkunColl has been punished for the aforementioned affronts to Wikipedia. I think you are just trolling his thread here, and are POV pushing. Working to bring about another's downfall isn't very nice, you should try to be a nicer person. What would Jesus do? ShieldDane (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, where do you get off telling me to be a nicer person? You've never met me, you don't know who I am, secondly, please point out where I have trolled, what I have done is try to seek a suitible punishment for a troublesome user with no apparent agender to build or improve this encyclopedia, thirdly, you were the one who created the image in the first place - so who should be a nicer person now? Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, I would like to bring your attention to Paragraph 1 lines 2-3 "Where ever Islamic Editors need to be baited, I SHALL BE THERE!". Oh, sweet hypocrisy. I am requesting a checkuser on you, something dodgey is going on here. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously humor is a foreign concept to you (and not in just the British Way) I wrote that based off of what I read on his talk page. Anyways I'm not sure what checkuser does, but since I've been pretty straight forward with who I am, no amount of your tattle-telling will harm me. ShieldDane (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi Protect my user page?

Can someone protect my user page? James Ewing is using anonymous proxies to add false Linkedin profiles to my user page: User:Spankr Is it possible to do it myself? —Preceding comment was added at 12:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Only an admin can do it and I have done so. Protection lasts one month. Viridae^Talk 12:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If this ever needs to be done again, you may visit WP:RFPP and request, which is the formal way to do it. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

today's AfD format seems a bit different/wrong

Hi, I'm sure in AfD only closed debates are usually in a blue box, then it's really easy to scroll through to find ongoing debates. But today at the mo it all seems to be in the blue (unless it's my tired eyes lol), rather than just those debates which are closed. I hope this is a mistake, but don't know how to fix it myself. Please could someone have a look? I'm off out for a bit in a mo. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 13:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks normal to me. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Aah, it does now, something someone did must've fixed it. This [31] is what it looked like earlier. Out of interest, if it does that again, anyone know how I can fix it? Reply to my talk page if you prefer. Anyway, problem solved.:) The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 13:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it. KeeperOTD (talk · contribs) sought to reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unreleased Material by Britney Spears. To do this, he took the old AfD and started typing at the bottom, overwriting the {{Afd bottom}} template. That caused an unclosed <div>, so when it was transcluded, the formatting of the AfD spread down the page looking for a </div>. If you ever see this happening, find the first one to go wrong, click "View this AfD", edit it and shove a subst'd {{Afd bottom}} at the bottom. That'll cure it. Then tap the last editor lightly with a cluestick. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 14:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Garyfreedman

Resolved

This account is possibly compromised based on the two sexually oriented edits it made to my talk [32] and to it's own talk [33]. There is nothing like that in it's prior history. To my knowledge I have never encountered this editor. No edits since August 2007 [34] and then this. Bringing here for comment.— Ѕandahl 15:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, based on the diffs, I'd say the account is comprimised...Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks compromised to me. Block it. Tiptoety ^talk 15:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and placed notice on it's page.— Ѕandahl 15:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

160.7.114.166

Resolved

 – No vandalism after final warning, Tiptoety ^talk 18:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Continued to vandalize after repeated warnings. See 160.7.114.166 / talk 199.125.109.37 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The correct place for this is WP:AIV, and he has not vandalized past final warning, I will keep an eye on him though. Tiptoety ^talk 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Block request of User:RichardCoxMongler

Resolved

 – blocked indef as vandalism-only account

Another template hacker! This one hacked the {{Citequote}} template. silly rabbit (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out where this vandalism (screenshot) came from (template? image?). I caught it at Beslan school hostage crisis [diff (Current revision (12:49, 13 March 2008) (edit) (undo) 84.234.60.154 (innocent ip) (Talk | block) [rollback] (→Motives and demands)] Any guesses about the source? El_C 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This diff, it seems. – Steel 17:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, see two sections above :) — Edokter • Talk • 17:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I merged the threads. El_C 17:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at WP:AIV and WP:UAA

Resolved

These pages are backlogged, and reports on AIV have been standing for 20+ minutes. I would help, but I'm at a public computer and won't risk account compromisation, so I need help. Thanks, Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor5435 & Spot

• Editor5435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Technodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - possible old account of Editor5435
• Spot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TruDef (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TruDef|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TruDef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - created by Technodo, mostly edited by him and Editor5435
• SoftVideo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - created by Editor5435, almost identical to TruDef
• Fractal compression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - original article around which most of the disputes are occurring

I don't have the time to write this up completely. I hope this will be enough.

Editor5435 is probably due a block by now for incivility, article blanking, blanking and editing Spot's comments, personal attacks against Spot, and more. There are a few diffs on Editor5435's talk page already.

Spot has written a number of inflamatory against remarks against Editor5435 and a company called TMMI, which Editor5435 most likely has a conflict of interest. Spot may have his own coi problems as well.--Ronz (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(restored the title of this incident, the archiving bot copied it here without the rest of the incident - slicing it in two - because Editor5435 accidentally added a section to the top, cutting the top off from the rest of the discussion. Attempting to repair manually.) - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I gave Editor5435 a 24 hour timeout, but he is right on one point: Spot (aka Scott Draves) has been editing articles on himself and his own endeavours, and many of them do not actually have external sources do demonstrate notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG, I would like to point out another inappropriate Wiki entry that appears to be self promotion. In the Wiki article Spot there is an entry under the heading Other meanings - *Scott Draves, digital artist and VJ. Based upon the contents of the list I feel this in an inappropriate example of self promotion and should be removed.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop putting your comments into the top of discussions, that's not polite. I am google hit #6 for "spot" so I think it's entirely appropriate for me to be in a any list of "spots". Any errors I have made editing other pages in no way justify what you have done to the Fractal Compression page. I also invite you to reveal your true identity so we can assess your conflict of interest. Spot (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go again serving your own self interest by shamelessly advocating and editing articles/discussions about yourself. Its a blatant violation of Wikipedia's COI and self promotion/vanity. As for the fractal compression page you might want to check out the discussion page, finally someone agrees with what I have been trying to say. Again, I believe it is you who have an agenda to spread misinformation about fractal compression for some unknown reason.--Editor5435 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz for bringing this to the attention of the admins, and Guy for stepping in. I don't know if I have time today to redo the article, but I'll get to it asap. Frankly I am really sick of dealing with this and if someone else who knows fractal compression would step up, that would be great. Perhaps if the text came from someone other than me, Editor5435 would be less incensed. If you don't really know about fractal compression and the history of deception surrounding it, please do not just assume the truth lies halfway between his claims and mine. Read the FAQ for starters, including the "Reader Beware" section. I think the Wikipedia article should have a similar warning.

As for the notability and sourcing for the articles about me and my work, this probably isn't the right place to address them in full but note that I didn't create these articles and they they have survived for a long time and been edited by a lot of people. I have made some edits to them under my own name without any deception, but I believe I am allowed to correct basic factual errors. If I have overstepped the rules then I apologize and invite an audit and the chance to provide references. Re notability, have been covered in Wired Magazine (May 2001), Discover (twice), The New Yorker (July 2004), Valleywag, BoingBoing, etc etc. My artwork appears on the cover of Leonardo and is permanently hosted on MoMA.org. See my bio. Spot (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to defend myself against the insinuations Spot has made against me. The company (TMMI) issued a press release in December, 2007 and another in January, 2008 about its fractal compression development activities which coincided with a minor rise in its stock price. I was unaware of any renewed development in fractal compression until 2 weeks after the last announcement when I realized the Wiki article was out of date and inaccurate. I made my first contribution 23:39, 26 January 2008 under my old under name Technodo. My browser lost its cache and I couldn't remember my password so 3 days later I created a new account Editor5435. I have not logged in as Technodo since 05:04, 15 February 2008. Also, I have been accused by Ronz of page blanking after I attempted to remove a page I created myself that everyone is screaming for its removal. This was not an act of vandalism, my intention was to end this ridiculous controversy. As for Spot's continued harassment over (TMMI) on the fractal compression talk board I would like to point out the article has no mention of TMMI or TruDef, so its a pointless off topic discussion.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• The below brought here from Ronz's page who asked us to continue the discussion elsewhere and suggested here. Spot (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Spot is still harassing me in my own talk page over off topic comments and accusations about TMMI. I have asked him on numerous occasions to stop. TMMI is not mentioned anywhere in fractal compression. What can be done about his annoying persistence in harassing me?--Editor5435 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not harassment for me to defend myself against your attacks. If you don't want me to talk on your page, then don't talk about me. Furthermore you have only once, today, asked me to stop. I have only edited your talk page twice. Spot (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am only defending myself against your ongoing libelous attacks against me. The fact I have discovered your frequent abuse and violations of Wikipedia's COI and NPOV, not to mention notability issues is a separate matter which I have reported to Wikipedia administrators. I have asked you on numerous times to stop your harassment on the fractal compression discussion board, you have since expanding your level of harassment to include my personal talk page. You persist with this nonsense about TMMI, a subject that is not even mentioned in the article about fractal compression. Your ulterior motives are transparent.--Editor5435 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What have I said about you that's libelous? Spot (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note that my statement "TMMI has a history of fraud" (iirc) has been confirmed by Editor5435 saying: "Fraud was committed against the company and its shareholders by a scam artist." on his talk page. Rather than respond there I will try to bring the conversation here since he objects when I respond on his talk page, calling it harassment. Spot (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spot, you were insinuating that the company was committing fraud, quite a different thing than being a victim of fraud. Also you said "pump and dump fraud" which is libelous, Wikipedia could be sued that have such things displayed on its website. You should be more careful about the accusations you make--Editor5435 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The press release says that the perpetrator was a Director of the company at the time. Regardless of who the victim was, illegal shares were apparently issued and entered the market. As for your accusation of libel, iirc I only said the possibility or appearance of a pump and dump (please point me at the exact quote, you seem to have deleted it). Merely stating my opinion is not libel, and neither is a statement in good faith. There are various people on the stock discussion boards saying the same thing, and in stronger language. Your threats will not intimidate me. Spot (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You are introducing OFF TOPIC irrelevant discussion to fractal compression, none of the above has anything to do with the subject of fractal compression technology. Your obvious attempts to discredit this technology have failed.--Editor5435 (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You introduced the topic of libel. If you can't back it up, then I'll consider the case closed. I do, however think it's rather interesting that you interpreted a statement about TMMI as "libelous attacks against me". This is more evidence that you are part of TMMI or have some conflict of interest with them. I would appreciate it if you would directly answer this question directly: do you have a CoI with TMMI? Spot (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You insinuated I was involved in a pump and dump fraud, stop trying to squirm your way out of this, and stop trying to obfuscate your attempts to discredit fractal compression by constantly trying to bring OFF TOPIC TMMI into the discussion, it isn't mentioned anywhere in the fractal compression article, just STOP this NONSENSE! Fortunately there are others who support my views on fractal compression and disagree with your false and misleading information you have attempted to spread.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Editor5435 has nominated the page about me Scott Draves for deletion in retribution for our edit war. Spot (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Retaliation? Or because he saw it as shameless self-promotion? We do seem to have rather more articles on you and your endeavours than the limited sources would seem to justify. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I added a bunch of sources to the talk page on the article. I didn't create any of these articles. Spot (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sources? I saw more self-promotion. seicer | talk | contribs 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• The sources listed here: Talk:Scott_Draves#Notable? are neutral third parties and established print periodicals writing about me and my work. Spot (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Scott Draves article has external links to his own websites draves.org and scottdraves.com which is gross abuse of Wikipedia, honestly, who makes web sites about themselves and uses Wikipedia as an advertising service?--Editor5435 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is silly. The article about Draves contains nothing that can be construed as POV and notability is established by multiple reliable sources per WP:N. The problem here is that two people are involved in a content dispute on the fractal compression article and it has escalated to personal attacks, accusations of COI and libel and people AFDing articles. I recommend both of you step away for a few days to cool off. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My Defense

Spot's unscrupulous methods to bring my contributions into question and to discredit fractal compression are obvious and transparent. If you read the fractal discussion board pay close attention the comments made by. Kevin Baast who is obviously well versed on the subject.

"After having read much discussion on this page, I have come to the conclusion that Editor5435's arguments are among the most rational and logically-sound of those made here. It's a pity to see so much of it fall upon deaf ears. I applaud and encourage his efforts, and ask other editors to consider his arguments more carefully. Kevin Baastalk 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)"

Spot isn't being honest here and is acting in bad faith.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Threat or vandalism to Plano Senior High School?

Someone posted at Wikipedia:Help desk#Plano Senior High School about this edit. Thought I should repost here for some advice. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the concern was dealt with by Bongwarrior, who was also posted by the same party, earlier. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Deliberate hoax. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should notify the police in Plano,Texas. With all the school shootings VA Tech, Northern Illinois, Columbine High School.The world isnt some happy place anymore.--Rio de oro (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just phone Mike Godwin. Right now. ASAP , about this. What happends something happens. Any you guys are left thinking , feeling guilty about. And , what happends if it a real threat. --Rio de oro (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The guy that posted this threat has broken USA law ; they posted a teroristic threat. A felony. So, its some serious bs . Rio de oro (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to notify the police in Plano,Texas, and the WM foundation.--Hu12 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this: Would I send my kid to this school tomorrow morning with a good feeling? No. Do we Wikipedians have sufficient background knowledge to make a final judgement about the seriousness of such a threat? No. So maybe it's better to notify the police. Of course, we are in the danger to turn a mouse into an elephant (that's a German saying). On the other hand: What if...? And finally, if it was a hoax: Maybe it's a good idea to send a message to bored kids: Don't fool around with threats like this. --Abrech (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: School is in Texas, IP that made the threat is from Pennsylvania. However, this is a major offense of US law, and does need to be dealt with seriously. ---CWY2190^TC 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that it's today's featured article just increases the likelihood that this is a poor taste of a bad joke. I'll leave it to others to decide what to do. Metros (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What we always do contact the autorities. Anyone in texas?Geni 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is almost certainly a joke... and has anyone notified the police yet? Sethie (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some shit you absolutely do not joke about. This is an example. HalfShadow (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got the phone number of the Plano police; I'd be willing to call, but I'm not sure they'd take the words of a 16-year-old Wikipedia admin from Canada too seriously. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As a licensed EMT and public safety professional, I'll volunteer to make the call. Bstone (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Call has been made. I have informed them of the threat, time and location. Bstone (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks BStone; I wish I'd spotted this thread earlier. I've now lost count of the number of times this sort of thing has arisen, and how it has not been dealt with seriously and expeditiously. Jimbo Wales' & Mike Godwin's positions has always been (to me, at least) that we are not qualified to judge the cogency of these incidents, the law enforcement agencies are, and they should always be reported for them to make the appropriate decisions. There was an addition to WP:SUICIDE to deal with this sort of thing, and every admin, at least, should be aware of it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The second you even attempt to make a 'joke' like that, you deserve exactly what happens to you. HalfShadow (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Bstone; the last thing this site needs is a real version of the Benoit incident. Paragon12321 (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I just got a call back from the Plano Police Dept in which I spoke to an officer. I sent him the diff with the offending post and a screenshot. I walked him through how to read it and he took down all the information and said they will investigate. The officer gave me a reference number, which is 08-43705. In case this ever needs to be brought up again this reference number can be used. Bstone (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the anon used a proxy to make that threat. Not much that can be done.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Cary Bass; the foundation is dealing with it, apparently. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hope this gets sorted out quickly. --Sharkface217 02:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If we let this slip by, what happens if people actually got hurt then it would be all over CNN, MSNBC, and FOX NEWS.--Rio de oro (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We didn't "let this slip by". The authorities have been informed, as clearly discussed above. Good job, Bstone and MoP. - 52 Pickup (deal) 11:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we may be able to get the original IP address that did this. The proxy IP resolves to two CGI proxy websites- one of them says that all activity is logged, and anything against their TOS will result in a ban from the proxy. I'm betting that if we e-mailed them, we could get the IP address from them that made the threat. Especially if it was from a wikimedia.org e-mail address. There's two domains that I believe I found (I'm behind a filter right now, so I can't check)- enjoylearning.com and clanzhost.com (or clanzhosting.com, not sure). I'll be able to tell for sure once I get home. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 13:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you figure it out please post it here. I have an email address for the police dept and can forward them any info. Bstone (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bstone, for making the call! and h2g2bob for reporting this. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Did anything happend or was there a report , or did anything unusal happend at the school. Rio de oro (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed the domain registrants for the proxies behind the IP. So now, we wait and see. And for those interested, the domains I found behind the IP are enjoylearning.info and clanzhost.com, so if you find any more, please let me know, so I can contact them as well. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, did anyone contact the school? They should investigate on their end, in case someone made the threat from inside the school. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume for a moment that the police informed them, but I can't WP:V that. Bstone (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good news! I got the logs for one of the proxies, and I'm looking at them right now. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, from the logs, there's an IP address I'm currently investigating. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Got your email just now and am logging in on Lyn's laptop! Checkuser says that's a direct match for user agent, tho' it's a reasonably popular one - Alison ^❤ 03:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) - there's a new proposal at Wikipedia:ThreatsOfViolence - intended to avoid having to cover similar ground repeatedly at noticeboards - take a look if you're interested - thoughts welcome.. Privatemusings (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I got a call from Det. McClendon from the Plano Police Dept today. We went over the fact of the case, the threat, etc. He has stated his interest in working with us in order to get him and his department information which would lead to the identity of whomever issued this threat, but indicated he is not the most technical. I said we're a bunch of geeks who would likely want to help and I see above that Nwwaew and perhaps others have begun to work on this. I am waiting for a call back from him as we got disconnected (my phone died), but I thought I'd update you all. Bstone (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mailed Bstone with what I have so far. It's not much, but it's worth taking a look. I haven't heard from the other proxy yet; I'll probably re-email them later on. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I forwarded it to the email I have for the Plano Police Dept. Thanks for the digging, tho the country where it seems to have come from (Netherlands) is a bit out of the jurisdiction of the TX police. Are we sure it's from Amsterdam? Bstone (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's the only IP that accessed the edit page for the high school. From that proxy, at least- theres another proxy that I'm still waiting for a reply from. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Talked to the detective again. Sent him all of the information you sent me and also included a link to this discussion. He thanked us for our hard work and said to always report incidents such as this as the police will always been interested in investigation a threat of violence. He asked that we do our best with the logs and investigate where this came from if it seems Amsterdam is not the location. Something in the US would be better, of course, as the NL is a tad bit outside the jurisdiction of the Plano police. In any case, he thanked us very much for our assistance. Bstone (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If the guy that posted the threat lives in Holland(aka Netherlands) do we need to phone The Hague , or INTERPOL. My opinion we need to phone interpol because its an international incident. PLANO PD cant just cross international boundaries like that. So, we need to file an Internet Crime form. Its on some web site called IC3 or something like that I'm sure of. Also, someone needs to send a email to the FBI , or if anyone can type in DUTCH alert the Dutch Police(or their own FBI ASAP) if the this guy is from the Netherlands.--Rio de oro (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I will email Det McClendon and ask if he would like us to fill out the complaint form here. Bstone (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dragging INTERPOL into this strikes me as a bit of an overreaction at this point. It was pretty obviously not a credible threat. All you're doing now is trying to teach this guy a lesson. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A lesson's one thing though... all it takes is one vandalism edit saying "I'm so excited to kill them all on 3/20/2008" etc. that actually does happen for all the shit to hit the fan. Jmlk17 19:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was some INTERPOL thing ; because it crosed COUNTIRES borders.--Rio de oro (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII article, AFD, and sock puppets

Hello. A short while back I started work on an article for a Famicom pirate cartridge, based off the original article User:FightingStreet had started, and another user, User:Wiki22445 nominated it for deletion. That in itself wasn't unusual. However the account holder nominated several articles in his short time here and did nothing else, and additionally as his contributions will show he vandalized the page, breaking the tags for several citations.

Additionally another account, User:Foxit22, appeared and placed a vote on the page. However the poster was completely new and hasn't posted any changes with the account since. Additionally the username of it seems to imply "fox it", a term for copyright holders to hand copyright infringing projects a cease and desists kill.

And then there's User IP:68.209.235.149, who oddly fired accusations of sock puppets under my control as the only possibility of anyone voting Keep for the article, and I'm led to suspect he might have set up some for himself. After speaking with one admin regarding what could count as notable online sources and validating those cited in the article, I posted that, and a short while afterward a user posted another comment, 68.209.235.149 claimed he was a sock puppet I was using, and then in rapid succession 4 IP only posts shouting delete appeared...the strange part about which being though is that all 4 either had no prior posts or the ones they did were entirely vandalism. Yet they suddenly speak in the same tone. There are additional factors as well, such as the user using a shield of "good faith" and posting such on the talk pages of myself and User:FightingStreet, but not practicing such as his attitude clearly shows on his own talk page.

Lastly, User:Ham Pastrami stepped in on the discussion page and pointed out he'd learned of it from someone "bemoaning its existence", which shows someone is attempting to play this situation unfairly.

I'm certain there is something going on regarding the deletion discussion for the article and disruption of said discussion, and would ask that it be investigated by an admin. Thank you for your time and patience.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Also take a look at the evidence regarding User:Kung Fu Man, as outlined in the AfD discussion. Several proxies and single-purpose accounts have appeared for both sides of the issue, as well as obvious meatpuppets by Kung Fu Man. (see AfD discussion for clear admission of this) I would call this a bad faith nomination, but then again, it looks like something everyone was in on. The majority of the discussion (not considering the sockpuppetry that took place later on) was in favor of removing the article due to issues with verifiability and notability, as outlined. As you can see, several suspicious IPs appear immediately afterwards, first following with "keep" votes, and then some single-purpose accounts opposing them with "delete" votes. The consensus before suspected sockpuppetry became involved seemed to be in favor of deleting the article, which aside from administrative action against the suspected sockpuppeteers involved, would likely be a good idea considering the dispute in following. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Following up on User:Kung Fu Man's edit, it would be a good idea to investigate some of the submissions of the suspected proxies of Kung Fu Man, namely Special:Contributions/72.234.254.153 (blatant proxy / sockpuppet) User_talk:Robert the Small (blatant single-purpose account) User_talk:Krator(blatant single-purpose account / sockpuppet) Special:Contributions/98.26.120.149 (blatant proxy / sockpuppet) Special:Contributions/Zsabreuser (blatant single-purpose account / sockpuppet) Special:Contributions/206.162.204.6 (possibility of proxy)
  • Excuse me? I think if you look at my (Special:Contributions/72.234.254.153)edit history, I have little to do with the topics Kung Fu Man talks about except for a few in the Mugen article. If you look closely, I'm practically fighting with him in the M.U.G.E.N article on some of the stuff he has in that article. By the way, I do have an account, I just rarely log in with it. EvilThouther (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

None of these accounts / IPs have edits outside of the AfD nomination. While Kung Fu Man is pleading a bad faith nomination, his side of the issue currently hosts the most suspicious accounts. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The accusation that I am a sockpuppet is so blatantly false that I question the judgement of the submitting editor. I'd encourage someone to strike up a conversation in Dutch with Kung Fu Man, too. User:Krator (t c) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I edit a lot of the same articles as Kung Fu Man. Guess that makes me a sockpuppet, too? Don't be ridiculous, anony. Your bad faith accusations really make it all the more obvious that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. JuJube (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• User reported and is pending further investigation. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kung_Fu_Man Nori198 (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• User:JuJube followed up with a threat on my talk page [[35]]. I thought this might be of interest to the case. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And this just gets more and more ridiculous. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • For the record, looking at my talk page will show KFM asking me for help. Which can only mean it's a carefully orchestrated plot to make this sockpuppet account look valid! lulz. JuJube (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Not to mention the entire posting history of User:Nori198 seems based around just making the report page XD Yeah this should be a hoot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Giving an outsider's point of view, the amount of anonymous and new users who came for that AFD was pretty interesting. I don't think they are sockpuppets, but meatpuppet, asked to come here in some forum. I suggest putting it for deletion review to get it back to AFD. The blogs are not reliable at all (had IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy or any other consumer site posted about this? No, because it is not even worth a mention). Keeping the article here is why people think video games only bloat Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure IGN and GameSpot will get around to covering it. --Pixelface (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently doing a tracert on some of the IPs to verify whether or not any proxies were involved. We can procede with blocking if anything comes up. In the meantime, I'll be sure to put in a request for the AfD review. Nori198 (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kung Fu Man has proceeded to vandalize my talk page [[36]], [[37]] and [[38]], and is likely to continue to do so as long as I revert him. Suggest temporary block if disruption continues. Nori198 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Meta Knight, King Dedede et al now that the TV 2 case is closed

Meta Knight and King Dedede have already been resurrected without discussion now that the TV 2 case is closed; I have restored the redirects. So, what's the plan to keep throw-away accounts users like User:Yair rand from running amok? Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly sure how his is a throw-away account given he's been doing some contributor work here (and I do have to add that it wouldn't be difficult to make either character's pages into proper articles rather than condensed sections on a character list). Just my thoughts on the subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've redacted that bit. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 for context. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should heed the arbitrators and stop edit-warring on these articles then "Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions." Catchpole (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, IPs and established editors (sans TTN) are continuing the edit-warring. The problem is, the IPs and newbies restoring the articles cannot effectively be punished, even with the arbcom prohibition. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that new discussions need to take place on Talk:Meta Knight, Talk:King Dedede, and Talk:List of Kirby characters, rather than revert wars. --Pixelface (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• User:Colonel Warden has resurrected the articles again without discussion. So the difference that the RfAR has made is .... once again, fuck all. Black Kite 18:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Unresurrected per Black Kite — although I had not checked back here when I did it. Such resurrections need to be discussed prior to their performance; this the spirit of the case. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  And the articles are again on the verge to "edit-wars". Jack and me reverted twice to the redirects with the words "restoring redirect again per prior concensus on talk page; take it to talk, people", but an IP is already openly declaring "I heard you. I'm just ignoring it." – sgeureka ^t•c 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd revert, based on the lovely nuggets of conversation such as "I heard you, I'm just ignoring it." and "TTN has been punished by Arbcom for his actions and now we undo the havoc that he wrought." As the AC have found, all sides in the conflict have been uncivil, but what I've seen is that the deletionists and the mergists are the lesser of the two evils. What I suggest is a unified discussion on the character list, stating what is disputed (notability and plot guideline compliance) and what is desired (real-world content creation, or merging into the list). Will ^(talk) 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I realise a discussion may have taken place, but I'm finding it hard to find it, let alone a consensus to merge. Will ^(talk) 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Community ban for another indef-blocked editor harassing me and SchuminWeb

I now ask the community to look at Mickylynch101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka Markanthony101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as confirmed by CheckUser.

Besides the accounts, he continually comes back using anonymous IP addresses, despite rangeblocks, such as these recent attacks here, here, and even in his unblock request.

I'm tired of putting up with this user, and I feel he's exhausted our patience. Would the Community please take a look, and consider a ban? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

endorsed- This user has promised further disruption, has been an absolute pest on WP and has already resulted in numerous time-wasting checkuser requests - Alison ^❤ 04:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nwwaew, It may be helpful for you to read the essay on Friday's user page. It gives some very valuable tips on how to due with these types of users. If I was in your position, I would just leave the vandal alone, as he will soon become board and leave you alone. Also, if I may add, posting messages here is just showing the vandal that he can get to you and will keep it up. I suggest emailing an admin instead. Let them take care of the issue for you. Hope this helps. Blessings Thright (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright

However, Nnwaew is asking for a community ban, which would allow us to block him on sight, thus balancing out the necessary post here. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 06:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup - WP:RBI is the order of the day - Alison ^❤ 06:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ostracision Ugh. and I thought BlackStarRock was bad... -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 06:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Another recent one, just confirmed by Alison: [39]. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 13:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Obnoxious and persistent, a bad combination. Therefore, ban. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support ban of him and all his nefarious socks — Rlevse • Talk • 02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Another possible one here, I'm waiting for confirmation from a CheckUser. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Mackan79 apparently WordBomb sockpuppet

For the record, Mackan79 has chosen to do what no editor should have to do - that is, to prove his innocence. Alison has confirmed Mackan's real life identity, and can now categorically state that Mackan79 is not Judd Bagley, and thus is also not a sock of WordBomb. Since GWH has not edited in a couple of hours, it is likely he has yet to see Alison's post, and he will hopefully come to his senses and post the necessary (and hopefully fulsome and contrite) apology. However, I see no reason that Mackan79 should have to wait to have his innocence recorded publicly here, where he was falsely accused of being Judd Bagley. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is as clear-cut a case as any of the "Express the 'wrong' opinion, get blocked as a sock" problem that has plagued this case. —Random832 14:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have received private assurances from Alison and an arbcom member that the evidence they have is pretty complete and unambiguous on the point of Mackan79 being another and unrelated person. I goofed, and have apologized on Mackan79's talk page.

On the issue of "express wrong opinion, get blocked" - There have been probably thirty or forty editors (possibly more, I'm not counting) I have seen comment or contribute similar opinions on the arbcom case or community block. Several have criticized me in some way or another. I have never had any reason to believe that any of those people were sockpuppets of anyone, with two exceptions, which I had been running by checkusers and arbcom for followup. I don't see how one could try to change the outcome of a massive community consensus by any action against one of forty people, nor did I particularly object to the wording Mackan79 used in arguing with me. Had it not apparently completely coincidentally closely matched language Judd used I would not have taken any action whatsoever. I see how it created the appearance of a conflict of interest, but it really wasn't. If I had tried malignly to deflect the debate bluntly in that manner it would have been totally ineffective, in addition to an abuse of power. If anything, and I was aware of this before I acted, the incident was likely to upset and embolden the anti-MM coalition.

It clearly would in retrospect have been better to hand this evidence to Arbcom and let them sort out what was going on. I have done so with other concerns - this one at the time seemed unambiguous, though that was looking back on it an error in judgement. But I couldn't have changed the overall debate through this action, and I didn't intend to or try to do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Alloacab 213.123.175.151

Resolved

I tracked this ip address (213.123.175.151) to the Alloa Citizens Advice Bureau! I have absolutly no idea why somone there would hurl abuse at my talk page, it was deleted but i reverted it so you can see it at my talk page. Terrasidius (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How strange, have you left any warnings? If not, do so, if you have, hang tight, I'm sure someone will be around to help. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's a recurrent event, then I'd bring it forward here, or continue with this notice. If it's a one time offense, goodness knows whose behind the terminal, even at the Advice Bureau. Vandalism is pervasive. Just revert and ignore for now. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced tagging of French commune stubs

User:JonHarder is adding unreferenced tags in the French commune stubs. However I think as there are thousands of French communes, so tagging all of them is not needed, or quite impractical. The French communes are inherently notable, so no one will challenge their notability. I have removed the tags from the stubs which this user added. Another user User:Gene Nygaard supporting addition of tags saying "it is entirely proper to tag them all—and highly improper to remove those tags without discussion". The tagging generally looks bad, and in uncontroversial articles like the French commune stubs is not much important. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is quite impractical to tag more than 30,000 French communes with unreferenced tags. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So if they are all getting tagged as unref (sorry I don't have any diffs to check), then is there a single reference, somewhere, that can be added to the French commune articles? Where is the information about them coming from? An atlas? Add a ref, that's all that seems to be needed. Adding a tag draws attention to the article and maybe someone will do a driveby ref for each. Without looking at a single article, it doesn't seem harmful to have the tags if the articles, like any other, are truly unreferenced. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They likely all came from an unreliable source in the first place (i.e., Wikipedia). But yes, somebody probably could find reliable sources for them. Until they do, those tags are quite proper. The fact that others which could have the tags do not is completely irrelevant. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)Unreferenced tags are not the same as notability tags. If the articles they are tagging do not have any references, what reason do you have for removing them? --Onorem♠Dil 16:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The tags are often not used in uncontroversial articles because these make the appearance of the article bad. The article United States is too long. But a too long tag is not allowed in the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Find a reference then. Problem solved. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the articles are unreferenced, "looking bad" is the least of their problems. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this will work? Seems reliable and independent of Wikipedia. Verifies the existence. Add it to unref articles and remove the tag. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh, its a pay for service. Still looking....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And fix the sort keys so the articles appear in the proper place in their categories while you are there. Like this one at Chalé. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You could have done that while tagging them, or indeed, instead of tagging them. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nygaard's been complaining about that as long as I can remember, and he's never very pleasant in going about it either. In the two years and more that he's been spreading misery, he could have submitted Bugzilla reports - it is a bug, English ignores accents when sorting - or even tweaked {{DEFAULTSORT}}, but apparently he prefers being curmudgeonly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly he should not be going round telling other editors what to do. He should shut up or do it himself. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We expect stubs to be unreferenced in many cases; the unreferenced tag isn't needed if there is also a stub tag on the article. That is, the stub tag isn't a compliment, it's a cleanup tag that indicates the article needs significant work before it will be of high quality. I often remove unreferenced tags from stubs for that reason, if I am looking at the stub for some other reason. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The time spent tagging stubs as unreferenced is wasted. It could have been spent fixing them up. Basic info for French communes: INSEE - census data, INSEE - "Inventaire communal", IGN - very basic geographical data. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several aspects to consider with respect to this discussion:

• What policies or guidelines address articles that are unreferenced and how does this apply to the {{unreferenced}} tag?
• To what extent are stub article exempt from WIkipedia policy?
• When is it appropriate to revert dozens of good faith edits without notify the editor that there is a problem, in the process carelessly discarding many other edits not related to the tag in question?
• When is it appropriate to use an automated tool, Twinkle in this case, to undo work that clearly is not vandalism?

I recently have increased my new page patrol activity, and this edit is probably what set off this particular thread. Six days later, on March 9, Otolemur crassicaudatus used Twinkle over a period of half an hour reverting my edits and then more again. When I asked what was up, it was suggested they go to AfD instead.[45] With some amicable back and forth, I declined bringing them to AfD and since no evidence was presented that a guideline was violated, I suggested that the tags be restored, which I did some time later. I thought the matter was settled until a new wave of reversions on different articles started.[46] It is quite frustrating to have my edits reverted as if they were vandalism, having to ask what the problem is and receiving no solid response. It became clear there was disagreement over the unreferenced tags, but I still don't understand why article improvements not related to the tags are also being removed. Apparently other editors are experiencing the same thing.[47][48]

The policy behind tagging articles as unreferenced is obviously the core policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Whenever I create a new article my screen always presents me with as you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. I see no reason to exempt stub articles from this policy; Wikipedia:Stub specifically says … Lastly, a critical step: add sources for the information you have put into the stub… With these as a basis, when I patrol new articles, I will continue to add the unreferenced tags as needed and object to their removal without providing the requested sources.

Currently many geographical location stubs are being added and the majority are referenced. The outstanding editors in this process include Cxz111 (talk · contribs), Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk · contribs), Afil (talk · contribs), M-le-mot-dit (talk · contribs) and Sadalmelik (talk · contribs). I'm sure I've missed some. It is quite effective to add the tag: the references soon appear (and who better to know where the material came from than the person creating the article), or the tag prompts the editor to include sources from that day onward. Apologies for this whole thread spilling onto the noticeboard. It belongs with the guideline and policy discussions. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 05:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Osroene article incivil editing

Can you please, check the anon IP revert war and incivil language in this article (see revert comment slang), and address the issue:

• [49]
• [50]

Please, also, see this recent relevant exchange at ANI [51], as well as checkuser identified and banned sock accounts: Azad chai (talk · contribs), Azerbaboon (talk · contribs).

Also, please, again note that the reverts by anon IP were made to the version by User:TigranTheGreat, who is himself engaged in reverts [52] on that article, but is limited by 1RR parole. Also User:TigranTheGreat earlier used the "baboon" slang [53], [54] very similar to the comment used by anon IP here. Atabek (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Baboon is not a slang. It's an animal which I currently study in my anthropology class and which I happen to find a disgusting creature. You can't assume that everything is about you and prevent people from using ordinary terms.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

legal threats and personal attacks by EBDCM (talk · contribs) (review of indefinite block)

[55][56][57] Here is some background information in respect to EBDCM's behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EBDCM&diff=prev&oldid=197732974 EBCDM has been indefinetly blocked but MastCell is considering to unblock him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MastCell&diff=prev&oldid=196575226 EBDCM has responded to the attacks he has made initially at MastCell's talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EBDCM&diff=next&oldid=197584542 EBDCM had been warned about making attacks. His initial response is below.

Disagree, Jayron. I'm not using Eubulides affiliations against him. I'm merely stating a fact. His edits are not good are are severely biased AGAINST chiropractic including unilaterally deciding what is an acceptable reference and how it is to be used. Just like how you've unilaterally blocked me without proper discussion especially with the points raised on MastCell's talk page. Regardless, all the points I raised above are valid and one needs only to look at the talk history to see how Eubulides and Quack Guru have seized the day and implement their agenda of fear mongering edits and having a double standard with respect to the chiropractic article. If I can make a formal complaint I'd love to do it because I had been intending to do so until Eubulides sneak attack to admin MastCell (whom I owe an apology).[58]

After being indefinetly blocked he posted more comments on his Wikipedia talk page. EBDCM explains that he has a lawyer friend and if necessary will take legal action. Read the comment below.

I am not making personal attacks, I am commenting on Eubulides' edits. Your SUBJECTIVE interpretation is reprehensible. You have also failed to discuss my rebuttal on MastCell's page; and if this block does not expire on the original date (which was wayyyyyyyyyyyy too long considering other precedents in similar circumstances) it will result, if necessary, in legal action. My good friend is a lawyer and owes me a favour. Please remove the indefinite block which was not justified or I will be forced to take remedial actions against yourself and the entire Wikipedia project if necessary. I expect a response ASAP.[59]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EBDCM&diff=next&oldid=197889014 EBDCM claims his attacks are not personal attacks but a "play-by-play of what is happening on chiropractic Talk."

EBDCM is very combative at the chiropractic talk page, has made legal threats, and personal attacks. I would like the community to decide whether EBDCM should stay indefinetely blocked or unblocked. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats are not acceptable. This one has been withdrawn ([60]). EBDCM is in a hole and I think the blocks placed by Jehochman were appropriate. I also think there is the potential to make some headway here; I would ask that Jehochman (the blocking admin) and I be allowed to work this out in as calm and rational an atmosphere as possible. Neither Jehochman or I are going to facilitate abuse of Wikipedia or legal threats, and I'm not going to unblock unless Jehochman is fully on board and a clear set of behavioral expectations are in place. In any case, I've asked EBDCM to take a few days away from Wikipedia and think about things before we make any sort of decision. Feedback is of course welcome. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, he returned and edited as an anon IP and his behavior was definitely far from improved. See this thread. -- Fyslee / talk 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

82.19.153.51

• 82.19.153.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Serious and unprovoked personal attack [61] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be related to this ip 90.209.209.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Have warned both users (final and only warning for the first one)--Jac16888 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You (Gordonofcartoon) reverted their earlier vandalism. Doing that brings the risk of this type of pointless and groundless attack. Death and legal threats are also not unknown. Or at least I've often had both. Also a lot of stuff about how big a gay I am (true) and how much of a cocksucker I am (also true). WP:RBI is the only way to deal with this childishness. And a deep breath. Taking the higher ground, that's what I call it... as I curse their parents :o) ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 21:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? I use pots. :) -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 00:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?

Can someone explain why Image:Scientology Symbol Logo.jpg is showing up in the documentation section of a number of templates? Example: Template:Navigation with collapsible groups. — Scientizzle 22:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've just felt my way here to report the same: looks like something called via one or other of the documentation templates, but, taking a quick look at {{documentation}}, I can't see anything obvious. Someone's prank, I guess. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just traced it to Template:Documentation/docname‎, which seems to be transcluded through several levels. I've reverted it, but it may take a while for the change to filter through. Possibly semi-protection in order? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, beat me to figuring it out. I semi-protected the template. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Full protection would make more sense. How often would this be edited by any user, including admins? ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reset. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing/protecting. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yawn (return of GSNGuy, or his "dad", or whoever...)

From my talk page (and Mrschimpf's, as well): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gladys_j_cortez#A_Speech_of_Apology Allegedly from banned user GSNGuy's "dad", User:Mr.GSNII. Could we run a checkuser and clear out the sock drawer again, or does that count as "fishing"? Gladys J Cortez 23:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Mr.GSNII has been blocked indefinitely. --clpo13_(talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look here. Tiptoety ^talk 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Immediate semi needed, please help!

Resolved

 – protected

Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal & Eliot Spitzer. Please semi these for a few weeks; look at the history on the scandal page in particular. The BLP vios are like machine guns here. Help! I can't protect, I'm not an admin. Lawrence § t/e 00:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have semi'd the former for a month; the latter was already protected. Black Kite 00:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

Resolved

I'm going to shamelessly steal from GWH here:"We have another spurt of IP and sleeper account vandals hitting ANI. I have boosted the protection to semi-edit / full-move from unprotected / full-move, with indef expiry to avoid the expiry wiping out the full-move. In a few hours someone should turn down the semi-edit manually, retaining the move protection". He's moved from AN to ANI,so keep an eye on other boards for this crap. SirFozzie (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the same vandal, I think. Different MO. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with wicked bizz-ah autoblock behav-yah

Resolved

Could someone look into this: User talk:ShirleyPartridge. I lifted the autoblock earlier today, and the user says it didn't work, and she is still blocked. So she reposted the unblock-auto template, and it seems she still can't edit. I tried to lift the autoblock, but it says she isn't blocked. I am megaconfused... Can someone PLEASE help out with this. Mooch ass Grassy ass... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Amanda Baggs

I need help at Amanda Baggs; I'm not an admin it's moving faster than I can keep up with. It appears that an off-Wiki blog dispute has spilled over to Wiki, there are COI issues, and I'm removing personal attacks, attempted outings of Wiki editors,[62] and BLP violations from the talk page at a rate I can't keep up with.[63][64] I'll come back and add some diffs in a minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More, this editor was previously blocked for linkspamming this blog.[65] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More, the COI spills over into the Mark Geier, Seidel controversy; Dave Seidel is apparently an involved, COI editor. I'm unwatching. URL REMOVED SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Given Baggs editors aren't autoconfirmed, I've semi'd that for a week. Moving to look at Geier. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No recent activity at Geier, so no admin actions taken. MBisanz ^talk 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to direct you to all the pieces, Mbisanz. I became aware months ago of the issues at Mark Geier, and when I waded into Amanda Baggs, I didn't realize there was a connection. Apparently, according to that blog, there is. Ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It gets better: apparently (according to someone posting on the talk page there) there's also a link to the Wiki chiropractic mess.(link removed) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

removed link above (that was added in good faith) per WP:PROBLEMLINKS -- Jim Butler (t) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be most parsimonious to note that these articles (Geier, chiropractic, etc) have significant problems with off-wiki recruiting and importation of outside disputes, and to take a fairly stern line with editors who fit this profile. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to blacklist the blog links people are trying to add? There's basically no way they're going to be allowed, nor will they be particularly appropriate anywhere else, so the blacklist seems like a neat solution. Natalie (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since no one has objected, I'm going to add the blogs to the spam blacklist. They can always be de-blacklisted if a good reason for including them surfaces. I will also remove those links from the talk page so there is no confusion. Natalie (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have no idea how the blacklist works, but endorse adding things such as this. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I apparently failed, so I've asked an administrator who knows how to help with this. Sigh. Natalie (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 has added these to the spam blacklist. Natalie (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the resolved tag; Natalie Erin has made a lot of progress at Amanda Baggs, but the situation continues at Donna Williams (author) and doesn't show any signs of letting up. BLP, COI, NPA, Civil, AGF; you name it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Will an admin please help with the ongoing disruption from Appto (talk · contribs), who is removing talk page posts,[66] removing warnings from his/her talk page, and all of the above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm back from lunch now and can probably work on this. I'm not sure is Appto really gets it, but if this continues s/he should probably be blocked, although I would appreciate some other opinions about this. Natalie (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to work with him/her for more than a day now, explaining policy and guidelines to no avail. Time consuming just to keep the BLP violations off the talk pages, and reinstated deleted text from talk. Either s/he can't understand, or won't understand. Unclear yet if Appto and Bettwice are the same editor. S/he has posted one reliable source to Donna Williams, which I would incorporate into the article if I could ever get a break from the disruptive editing. Timesink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I've warned and have their contribs page in my background. Next violation is a block. MBisanz ^talk 19:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that Appto and Bettwice are the same person. Bettwice has self identified as John Best, a rather aggressive figure in the anti-vaccination community and the writer of the Hating Autism blog. That user's writing style up until the self identification were also consistent with Best. Appto, on the other hand, writes in a very different style and in my experience, Best has a hard time moderating his own choice of words, so I find it doubtful that Appto is Best, yet somehow remaining mostly calm through this entire thing. The post linked above, where Best identifies himself, is a pretty typical example of his conversational style. Honestly, we could probably block the Bettwice account now, as I sincerely doubt it won't be disruptive, but I'm more than happy to give people enough rope to hand themselves, as the saying goes. Appto, on the other hand, seems somewhat reasonable, just laboring under a misimpression of how Wikipedia works. The conversation is continuing on the talk page, so perhaps it will be fruitful in some way. Natalie (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange, because somewhere in all the mess of the last 24 hours, I thought Seidel accused Appto of being John Best. Well, the 12-hour break is welcome so I can get something done around here. Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible he did, because both accounts were linking to Best's blog. John West has also identified himself as Bettwice on his blog, so I think that ID, at least, is pretty airtight. Natalie (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I identified Best when he posted under an IP address, which I recognized from another (non-WP) context. I apologize for the rules violation and will not do it again. - DaveSeidel (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

12 hour block for Appto for Disruptive editing → [67][68], a continuation of yesterdays removals and alteringof comments[69][70][71]--Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Bettwice33 (talk · contribs) for this, which is a copy-paste from his blog and contains various personal attacks, following several stern warnings. I have also removed the blog post from the talk page, as it is either a copy of discussion here or personal attacks. Natalie (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Appto being John Best; he has a history of being capable of writing in a number of different styles. He has even acted as a female on a forum at one time. The man is obsessed with the issue of Amanda Baggs and anyone who supports her - including Dave Seidel - and is capable of anything. The only way to be certain is to do a checkuser between Appto and Bettwice33. If there isn't a match, there may at least be some evidence to meat puppetry if not sock puppetry. GetDumb 01:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Get Dumb is right. He must be reading Wrong Planet, because the subject was indeed mentioned that User:Bettwice33 was playing a woman on a forum (it was Autism Speaks by the way) and further even used it to threaten someone privately. I myself have been the victim of this man's erratic and psychotic behaviour. It is not beyond reason that User:Appto is a sock puppet of User:Bettwice33. He has been irrationally unhinged by the publicity Amanda has received because he is convinced that she is not Autistic. His so called "million sources" do not exist beyond information from two people who claim to know her and do not. User:Bettwice33 is trying to involve WP in his personal war against Autistic Spectrum Disorders - all because he has been driven to meglomania by the fact that his son is Autistic and he can't handle it. Banning him is the best course of action against this person, and his IP should be blocked as well if it hasn't already. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Read two posts up, Fenric - the account has been blocked indefinitely. My experience with John Best online has been quite different - although he may claim whatever he wants about his identity, I've found that anything he's typing deteriorates into the same spiel after about three posts or so, and thus it seems unlikely that Appto is John Best keeping up a charade for an extended period of time. It wouldn't surprise me at all, however, if the two were confederates.Natalie (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I did see that. Sorry if I confused you. I was pushing for the check user and the IP block. With respect, my experience with Best goes a long way back, and he can (if he wants to) maintain such a charade. I've seen it. But it is also possible that User:Appto is a meat puppet rather than a sock puppet I agree. Either way - a check user would certainly resolve that matter once and for all. Curse of Fenric (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ay. I didn't realize what all I had walked in to; before I add it, can I get some extra eyes on the proposed text I've added to the talk page of Donna Williams (author), based on the one reliable source that came out of all of this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it, and given that I understand that Donna has disputed the content of the interview and the context of it, it's reliability is questionable. The fact that it's more than ten years old also doesn't help. I think the source needs back up. By itself it may be okay but because it's being disputed places a cloud over even using the thing. GetDumb 01:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're questioning the reliability of an Australian Broadcasting Interview of Fred Volkmar, the leading autism authority in the United States? I agree that it needs to be used very conservatively because of its age, but I'm unclear on what basis in policy the source can be ignored ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm questioning if it's his current opinion, or his opinion from 1996. If it's current (and this should be mentioned) then it's not a problem. But if the opinion is as old as the interview then the rejection of the opinion by Donna Williams take precedence. Volkmar should be pursued for a current opinion that being the case. I wouldn't be surprised if it is different. GetDumb 07:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note on Bettwice33, he has made a number of what I would consider slanderous remarks against Wikipedia on his blog in relation to this issue. FYI guys and girls. Curse of Fenric (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock requested

Can someone please unblock User:Christopher Mann McKay with an unblock summary of "user has agreed not to repeat tendentious behaviour"? I have agreed the conditions with him, and posted to his page, but for some reason the webfilter here at college won't let me load Special:Ipblocklist. Thanks. Black Kite 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd normally say we should wait for input from the blocking admin, but it appears there's a pretty strong consensus to unblock given such an agreement. Went ahead and fulfilled the request on your behalf, pending any new developments. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The blocking admin also did say "If some other admin wants to stick their neck out for you, on their head be it." So on my head be it :) Edit: Ah, I now see that this was the declining admin, not the blocking one, so I have contacted the blocking admin as well. Black Kite 10:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't really object to this unblocking. Perhaps indef was too long but it seemed to me that having reached an impasse on WP:ANI over the use of that image, he was then upping the stakes by not only taunting User:Prester John (for whose stance I have equally little tolerance), but also adding an even more offensive caption to the original image. However, CMM seems to have realised that this sort of behaviour is not going to go down too well. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

how big is the risk? I suggest unblocking the user and watching their actions. Next offence place a time block of 6 months.Thright (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Autoblocks and public computer

Hi, I continually get autoblocked and people vandalising using my account (one happened just today) because I use a public computer. Is there any way to stop this from happening? Littleteddy (roar!) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You could create an account for yourself. WP:ACCOUNT. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is my own account. I will log out in future, but I still get autoblocked occasionally. I'll just add the template ASAP when I do I guess. Littleteddy (roar!) 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, I misread - Yeah you need to make sure that you don't have the "keep me logged in" checked off - so that when you end your session you don't remain logged in. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. The autoblocker doesn't (or isn't supposed to anyhow) block logged in users on IP users. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Used to happen to me in 2006 when I was on a large ISP that channeled its entire traffic through one proxy filter. Orderinchaos 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the IP is autoblocked (due to another logged-in user), my understanding is that it will prevent logged-in users from editing from that IP. —Random832 14:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That was my understanding, it will block any users who try to edit through the blocked IP. Woody (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But not if the IP was blocked independently of a user? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IP blocks can either block logged in users or not, although the default is obviously to not block logged in users. My understanding of autoblock is that it is supposed to catch other logged in users, and I guess I do find this to be a useful way to ID sockpuppets. Not infallible, obviously, but useful. Natalie (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Logged in users used to get caught by the autoblocker but not for ages now. I suppose we'd better ask someone in the know. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The original block could have been set to autoblock. It is just a tickbox that needs unticking Agathoclea (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the whole point in autoblocks, it enables blocking of an IP and all users on that IP without knowing what the IP, as is the case for all non-checkusers blocking signed in accounts. This stops someone using strings of abusive accounts from the same IP. This causes problems with those whose ISPs used proxies which either don't send x-forwarded headers or the software hasn't been configured to use (ask the SAs to add them). This used to be a huge problem for AOL with their superproxy system but that was resolved sometime ago by them adding x-foward info, it was also a problem with google accelerator (don't know if it still is), where adding WP to the sites not to accelerate eases the problem. Perhaps unsuprisingly WP:AUTOBLOCK gives some info on this --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I'll just add the unblock template when it does happen. Littleteddy (roar!) 08:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If Americans Knew article is being attacked by malicious, uncivil editors

Extremely uncivil, inaccurate, and defamatory comments about living people were put on the discussion page ("If only Americans Knew that the entire board of this group has a Jew-hating skeleton in their closet...") These need to be removed and the poster needs to apologize or be blocked from further posts. In addition, the continued malicious reversions need to stop. The information I posted about If Americans Knew was sourced, verifiable, and accurate. It needs to be protected against group vandalism. "Editorforaccuracy (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)"

The above editor appears to be a spa and possibly the same user as Factualizer. IrishGuy ^talk 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As an aside - the sources seem to very weak in that article - I suggest it needs more eyes and lots of work. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

give a strong warning and see if this user does it again. Thright (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Luciano Pavarotti - Infobox and Talkpage

I'm not certain if this is quite an admin issue, but I was very troubled by a recent post from an editor regarding the addition of an infobox by an anon editor. (see this section [72])I have replied extensively but would like some more input on whether I'm correct in my assertions in response to what I saw as an attempt to use a wikiproject to stifle dissent. Exxolon (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Still not clear whether there is any legitimate dissent being stifled. But Fram has blocked Warbler123 (talk · contribs · logs) indef as a sock of WJH1992 (talk · contribs · logs), and 88.111.201.28 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a week, for the same reason. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy (User:WJH1992) edits mostly UK television-related articles and now seems to have branched out. He is relentless to the point of pestilence. He has a sock-drawer that can only be described as overflowing, and seems not to be getting the message that his edits are unwelcome here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since WJH1992's original block in December, I have blocked 13 socks (IP adresses and usernames), and other admins have blocked a lot more (the category Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WJH1992 is far from complete). The original block was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive115#Block review of User:WJH1992, and nothing has changed since then. It is very annoying to have to check hundreds of edits (and he makes many, many, very minor edits) to see if they are useful or not, and things like this[73] are not really helping (although it made me smile the first time he did it, by the third time it became rather stale). Fram (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the idea of removing infoboxes in all operatic singers are based on consensus from all the members of WikiProject Opera for standardization and also to avoid repeated / wrong data. I am putting this link at WikiProject Opera talkpage for members attention if you guys have further queries - Jay (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) (A member of WikiProject Opera)