Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive234

User:Wnjr has racked up a lengthy user contributions list; with only an insignificant number of exceptions, these edits are almost invariably tagged as being "minor." See [1]

The use of "minor edit" tags is reserved for edits where "only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."[2] Even a cursory review of recent edits that User:Wnjr has marked as "minor" reveals that the edits are frequently substantive. To pick only two recent examples:

• This edit to
  redistribution of wealth
  ," it certainly isn't true that such a change "could never be the subject of a dispute" as the minor edit tag connotes.
• There is, surely, nothing objectionable to adding the name of a version of OSX.[3] But even if that edit "could never be the subject of a dispute" (Which is not certain, since the insertion is unsourced), it is a substantive change, not the sort of "typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes" connoted by the minor edit tag.

Just a few other recent examples of substantive edits mislabeled as "minor edits": [4][5][6][7][8][9].

The point here is not that the changes User:Wnjr are mistagging are necessarily objectionable, but that they are not minor as Wikpedia policy uses that term. These changes are ineluctably substantive, and my understanding of Wikipedia policy was that the minor edit tag should never be used for substantive edits. That, I had thought, is the purpose of the minor edit tag: to signal other editors that this edit does not require careful scrutiny.

I provided User:Wnjr with a warning on this point, see [10], and was met with total denial and hostility. User:Wnjr denies any impropriety in her or his past (mis)use of the minor edit tag, which suggests that he will continue to abuse it. Since user:Wnjr plainly has been and continues to serially abuse the minor edit tag, and since s/he is apparently unresponsive to being warned by a regular user, I would request that the warning be reiterated by an admin, to discourage this ongoing abuse. In the alternative, perhaps an admin could correct me if I have misunderstood the purpose of the minor edit tag.Simon Dodd 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While your concern about the "minor" tag was correct, you made the mistake of combining your message with a totally unnecessary level-3 warning ({{Uw-longterm}}, speaking of "only warning", "vandlism" and "you will be blocked". No wonder the other user reacted with hostility. I'd suggest you go back and apologise. By the way, there's an option in the edit preferences that marks all edits as minor by default, maybe some users think that's a good thing, who knows? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware when I added the secondary tag that {{Uw-longterm}} was a "level-3 warning ... speaking of 'only warning', 'vandlism' and 'you will be blocked.'" At WP:WARN, that tag is described as having the purpose of flagging a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse," which would precisely describe User:Wnjr's record of a long term pattern of abusing the minor edit tag. That's why I added it, and if that isn't {{Uw-longterm}}'s purpose, perhaps WP:WARN should be changed to reflect that? ;) Simon Dodd 15:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on! Pull the other one. Is there something we don't know about here. Some history between you two? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Theresa, I'm not sure what part of my comment you're objecting to. I've never used the {{Uw-longterm}} tag before, and I used it in a case that (it seems to me) fell squarely within the kind of behavior that WP:WARN says the tag should be used for: a long-term pattern of abuse. I'm at a total loss for how you can suggest that if User:Wnjr has been abusing the minor edit tag for a long period of time, they have not ipso facto displayed "a long-term pattern of abuse," ex visceribus verborum.

Frankly, per your comment at the user's talk page, if I misused the tag, then yes: it is the tag's fault, or at least the fault of WP:WARN. If this tag shouldn't have been used in this case because the template is needlessly inflammatory as a remedy to the kind of abuse the tag is held out to remedy, then there is self-evidently a mismatch between the behavior WP:WARN says that the tag should be used to flag and the language the template employs to effect that warning. I see only two possible explanations for your doubting my good faith here: Are you denying that WP:WARN says that {{Uw-longterm}} tag is intended to warn a user for a "Long term pattern of abuse," or are you disputing my and Fut.Perf.'s conclusion that User:Wnjr was abusing the minor edit tag?

In any event, I've proposed changes to remedy what is apparently a problem.[11]. Simon Dodd 15:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am objecting to is you use of the word "abuse" in this context. I have personally, on many occasions advised people that they should not use the minor edit button for anything except trivial changes and I have never once, even thought to call a simple error on their part abuse. You were way of of line on this. Please also do not rely on templates. They are simply a shortcut way of saying something. They are not official, and they hold no greater importance than if you simply say something yourself. I hardly ever use templates, and certainly a situation like does not merit the use of a template at all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Theresa, misusing the minor edit tag once or twice is not abuse, that much we can certainly agree on. But that's a red herring: at issue here isn't terming a single, simple error "abuse," we're talking about serial mislabeling spread over 2+ years. Of 395 edits credited to user:Wnjr, see [12], virtually all are labeled as minor edits, and a significant fraction of those edits are substantive. That is serial misuse of the tag over a sustained period of time - and yes: when a user is "us[ing] wrongly or improperly[,] [or] misus[ing]"[13] a tool repeatedly, far beyond the point it's possible to excuse the conduct as simple or isolated mistake, that constitutes abuse, so far as I'm concerned.

And for that matter, even if there is a reasonable argument that this behavior doesn't qualify as abuse (either under the term's plain meaning or as a term of art on WP), with all due respect, that call is far from sufficiently inarguable to support your heavy-handed accusation that I was "way of of line on this." If your only quibble is semantics - i.e., the only issue that you're contending is whether user:Wnjr was serially "abusing" the minor label tag, rather than, perhaps, serially "misusing" or making a constant and repeated error - your conclusion is no more or less reasonable than mine, and while you might certainly disagree with my conclusion, you have no right on the strength of that alone to upbraid me for using a template that purports to be for dealing with serial abuse to flag what is at least arguably serial abuse.

It seems to me that your beef isn't with me, it's with the language of the template. So change the template, or change WP:WARN, but don't start hurling accusations of impropriety or bad faith around just because you disagree on a semantic judgment call. Simon Dodd 17:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that when reverting obviously disruptive edits they should be marked as minor because the edit plus the reversion results in no cumulative change to the page, am I wrong here?

Wnjr 16:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

self-evidently a mismatch between the behavior WP:WARN says that the tag should be used to flag and the language the template employs to effect that warning. Oh come on, you're not a dumbass, don't resort to that. If you're going to put a warning, you need to at least read it first. This is rediculous. He probably has the 'mark all edits as minor by default' box accidently checked in his profile. Ever think that instead of a knee-jerk, holier-then-thou decision to place a massively inflammatory warning on someones talk page, you ask nicely on a talkpage? Last time I check,

M^ask?

16:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How has this become an issue? The tag is described on WP:WARN as being for flagging a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse." No one disputes that much. No one but the user him/herself disputes, on a substantive level, that User:Wnjr had developed a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse." How is it possible that anyone who speaks English as a first language can criticize me for using a tag for the purpose for which it is plainly advertised as existing at WP:WARN? As to whether the template is too strongly-worded, why are you criticizing me for that? Who am I to tell WP how harshly to come down on users determined to qualify for the tag? If you think the tag comes down too hard on a user, change the template, or change WP:WARN to make clear that it is not intended to flag a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse." The only credible basis you can possibly have for criticizing my adding the tag is if it is completely obvious that User:Wnjr's record vis-a-vis the minor edit label does not qualify as a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse" under either the ordinary meaning of those words, or as some WP term of art which I'm unaware exists. See [14].Simon Dodd 17:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You added a strongly worded warning that you failed to read first! How is this not going to be the issue? Off the top of my head, thats a

M^ask?

17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How can a user who has been a Wikpedian since January 2, 2005 and who has racked up well in excess of three hundred edits possibly raise a WP:BITE defense? Are you kidding? By that standard, your treatment of me here is out of line and in violation of WP:BITE, since I've only been on WP for three months longer than

Moral Politics

(2002).

I also reject your argument that "2/3 of those choices dictate you not use that template." I didn't choose to use that template - WP did. I didn't write the template, and so far as I know, as a regular user, I have no authority to modify it. That I'm making this point in good faith ought to be underlined by the fact that I've suggested to those who do have authority to change this situation that it ought to be changed.[15] But in the meantime, WP has a tag to warn users who display a pattern of abuse, I identified a user with a pattern of abuse, and accordingly, I tagged that user with the tag WP makes available to report a pattern of abuse. That's all. Some tags have various warning levels, and the reasonable assumption here is that if a tag doesn't have various warning levels, it is to be applied when applicable. Here it was applicable, there were not various warning levels to choose between, so I applied the tag. Whether WP chooses to come down on people so tagged like a ton of bricks or as leniently as can be is absolutely, unequivocally and in no way my call. Your beef is with WP:WARN or the template itself, not me. I followed the rules as I understood them to be, and nothing you're said persuades me that I misunderstood the rules - particularly since it's been found that I was correct in identifying the abuse!Simon Dodd 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How can a user who has been a Wikpedian since January 2, 2005 and who has racked up well in excess of three hundred edits possibly raise a WP:BITE defense? Are you kidding? By that standard, your treatment of me here is out of line and in violation of WP:BITE, since I've only been on WP for three months longer than User:Wnjr!

You have far many more edits. I knew nothing at 300 edits.

But common sense does not dictate that I should be deciding what level of sanction WP decides to rain down on identified serial abusers.

Exactly. So why DID you make a judgement on the level needed? Did Wikipedia take over your account and warn this user itself? Is it self aware? You CHOOSE A TAG. You. You choose how to warn this user and how seriously.

That's the problem with invoking "common sense" - as George Lakoff has pointed out, common sense is not a value-free construct, and what strikes one person as common sense can reasonably strike someone else as totally crazy. See Lakoff, Moral Politics (2002).

Ohh, a

strawman

? for me? I love it.

I also reject your argument that "2/3 of those choices dictate you not use that template." I didn't choose to use that template - WP did.

See my earlier point on how we have not created an encyclopedia that is self aware, can hack your account and post its own warnings.

I didn't write the template, and so far as I know, as a regular user, I have no authority to modify it.

Well then, no one stopped you from reading it did they? You didnt feel the need to possibly review the warning you were to be posting?

That I'm making this point in good faith ought to be underlined by the fact that I've suggested to those who do have authority to change this situation that it ought to be changed.[138]

It doesnt need to be changed, users need to review things. We have a preview button for a reason. Long term abuse is covered by this template, if the template was inappropriate, its not long term abuse.

But in the meantime, WP has a tag to warn users who display a pattern of abuse, I identified a user with a pattern of abuse, and accordingly, I tagged that user with the tag WP makes available to report a pattern of abuse. That's all. Some tags have various warning levels, and the reasonable assumption here is that if a tag doesn't have various warning levels, it is to be applied when applicable. Here it was applicable, there were not various warning levels to choose between, so I applied the tag.

Well, obviously not everyone feels it was appropriate. In fact, no one but you thinks it was appropriate

Whether WP chooses to come down on people so tagged like a ton of bricks or as leniently as can be is absolutely, unequivocally and in no way my call.

Wikipedia does not choose anything, as I said above. Its not self aware. Me, you, and others, acting in a community, make decisions and carry them out individually

Your beef is with WP:WARN or the template itself, not me. I followed the rules as I understood them to be, and nothing you're said persuades me that I misunderstood the rules - particularly since it's been found that I was correct in identifying the abuse!

Well then, I might suggest you read the article on

M^ask?

18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You have far many more edits. I knew nothing at 300 edits.

Totally irrelevant. That might have some valence if he'd registered in 2005 and then gone inactive for a couple of years and the three hundred plus edits were all in the last two weeks, but that isn't the case. WP:BITE doesn't define "newcomer" and contents itself with citing Newbie as its premise for what constitutes a "newcomer." That term is invariably understood to mean how new to a community a person is - hence the term, newcomer - not the level of familiarity the average user will have attained having been a member of the community for several years. Here, WP:BITE has no... Uh... bite. ;)

Exactly. So why DID you make a judgement on the level needed? ... You CHOOSE A TAG. You. You choose how to warn this user and how seriously.

Incorrect. The tag is for "Long term pattern of abuse." Unlike, for example, "Vandalism" or "Creating inappropriate pages," where there are several "levels" of warning, permitting a user to "choose how to warn this user and how seriously," i.e. to tailor the level of sanction to the infraction, {{Uw-longterm}} is binary: either there is a "Long term pattern of abuse" or there is not. Here, there was; the choice was either to include the tag with whatever sanction WP deems appropriate, or fail to include a tag that is explicitly directed at the conduct at issue, viz., "Long term pattern of abuse."

You didnt feel the need to possibly review the warning you were to be posting?

No, because as I keep explaining to you and you keep failing to grasp, {{Uw-longterm}} is binary! There are not several levels of sanction available; its criterion is either met or not. user:Wnjr's conduct met its criterion. What sanction follows from {{Uw-longterm}}'s criterion being met are the concern of people authorized to make that determination - which, so far as I'm aware, does not include regular users. If you're going to tell me that in fact, I can change the template, say so explicitly, and I'll go change it right now, and cite your reply when I get shot down.

It doesnt need to be changed, users need to review things. We have a preview button for a reason. Long term abuse is covered by this template, if the template was inappropriate, its not long term abuse.

What? That doesn't make any sense. Where is that written in WP policy? If the sentence for murder is death, and I think that's too harsh, can I reduce the sentence to manslaughter, notwithstanding that the crime was, in fact, murder? This is the template that warns a user, in such terms as WP has determined are appropriate, that they have been committing long-term abuse; if they have been comitting long-term abuse, then that is the template that I should add, notwithstanding that I might personally think it's a little harsh. To make the verdict rest on the sentence turns the process inside out!

Well then, I might suggest you read the article on consensus and get back to us when your done.

Might I suggest that you read WP:AGF and reconsider your wholly-uncalled for belligerent attitude towards me here? Simon Dodd 19:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, absurdity factor has kicked in. Simon, smile, accept that you posted a template without reading it, which was a mistake, and move on. In the future, make sure you read the content of anything you transclude (template used) because the title on it may be something that can mean multiple things, and likely not the one you want. As with many things in life, you're responsible for the content you use as well as the cover of it. You also get further by nothing trying to say "Its not my fault because of this tiny detail here." Mistakes happen, I've collected quite a few. Accept, apologize, move on. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Auto, it's not in dispute that I posted the template without reading it. What's in dispute is whether that's a mistake when the conduct being warned for by the template falls squarely within the purpose of the tag and there are not multiple levels of sanction available.

It would unquestionably have been a mistake to not read the template had I been tagging user:Wnjr for, say, vandalism, because (assuming arguendo that s/he was, in fact, vandalising) there are five different levels of sanction available for that tag. S/he has to be tagged with one of them, of course, but I have to determine what level of sanction I use, and since that requires matching the harshness of the sanction to the infraction, obviously the template has to be reviewed. But that is not the case here! {{Uw-longterm}} has a binary criterion; there either is or isn't a long term pattern of abuse. There was here. It's therefore totally irrelevant how harsh the sanction is; what matters is whether the conduct the tag is for has ocurred. That isn't a "tiny detail." My understanding is that if someone commits an infraction to which multiple warning tags can apply, all relevant tags must be applied. Is that not the case?

I've made a lot of mistakes on WP, and if I thought this was one of them, I'd apologize, but I can't see how this is one of them. With all due respect, WP:WARN says that tag is for a certain kind of conduct, the conduct being warned of had occurred, and since there is no countervailing WP policy of which I'm aware, how was this a mistake? If an admin enforced the 3RR rule notwithstanding that they thought it was too harsh, would that be a mistake too? Simon Dodd 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... love me some

M^ask?

02:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this right: Wikipedia has a policy that says that users should ignore all other policy whenever they feel as if doing so will, in their view, "improv[e] or maintain[] Wikipedia"? That is, without doubt, the most retarded thing I have ever seen in my life. Without any exaggeration. That beats everything that's ever been on America's Funniest Home Videos. That beats over a decade of Dilbert strips. From now on, any time anyone cites NPOV or NOR at me, I'm going to cite WP:IAR at them in service of "improving [and] maintaining Wikipedia." How does one propose deleting a policy? Good Lord!

And for that matter, while I was about to spend several minutes castigating this concept of "wikilawyering" -- which is virtually incoherent, btw; where is the policy's "spirit" written down? Of course, by definition, it isn't! Thus, how can a user possibly adhere their conduct to a rule that they have no possible way of knowing, and how can it possibly be consistently applied by admins when there is no authoritative statement of what the policy really means? A policy is its text. If it has a spirit, that's fine, and polite notes (which aren't what you and other admins have given me here, better described as insults abuse and threats) that the text may say "this" but the common understanding is "that," but it should only be the text that can serve as a basis for forming an admin lynch mob, which is what y'all have done to me on this page -- but really there's no point: You say I'm "wikilawyering," I say I'm trying to improve Wikipedia, so I cite WP:IAR in my defense!

And since Theresa's clearly established that y'all think I lack any comprehension of WP policy (apparently I'm dumb enough to think that the rules mean what the rules say; gee, what was I thinking) and template usage (same), and given that you seem to think (per notes above) that WP:BITE applies based on knowledge not any kind of temporal test, please conform any reply to WP:BITE.Simon Dodd 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I shall help you -- its a mistake. The minor tag is a minor issue, and not abusive by this user, or vandalism. There is no indication to believe that the user was acting with knowledge that somebody would be upset at what he was doing. This is what uw-1 stuff is for, or perhaps better yet nice custom written thing saying "I think you should have done... this is why..." I don't think you'll find anything further in continuing this discussion. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not serial abuse if it's not something the editor has been repeatedly warned about. --OnoremDil 02:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Is "serial" defined anywhere in Wikipedia policy? No? Then its ordinary meaning applies. "Serial" in this sense means "effecting or producing a series; sequential," as in "serial killer." Hence the term serial. If something is abuse and it continues for a period of time, it is by definition serial abuse.Simon Dodd 13:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK...fine.

Try assuming good faith and realize that if the user doesn't know that it is abuse, they aren't going to worry about doing it repeatedly. The abuse part is why it's my opinion that it wasn't serial abuse. If the user is not warned that what they are doing is wrong, there's no reason for them to know what they are doing is wrong, and I can understand a user being upset after you basically accusing them of long-term vandalism because you didn't check the template. I would think templates for "serial abuse" would be used after a user does something, is warned, does it again, is warned again, etc. I don't doubt at all that your original message was made in good faith, but when the discussion escalated on his talk page, the right thing to do would have been to apologize, not bring it here...but that's just my opinion. --OnoremDil

19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• See discussion here and pages linked therein. This problem has arisen because of poorly-drafted WP policy, and I have taken steps to remedy the issue. Simon Dodd 13:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Related: #Soapboxing, possible disruption, possible deletion required

I've been in some conflict with User:Codeplowed who insists on putting a soapbox-like "rant" on the talk page ([16]) of Talk:DeVry University that I deem as partially a personal attack, partially uncivil, partially bad-faith and mostly bad because some comments on there are possibly going to cause problems if left public (the comment is far from nice and is all unsubstantiated).

After a little explanation on why I thought it was bad and why I removed it (I've removed it something like 3 times), he then, I think, tried to put a level 3 warning on me for vandalism (User talk:x42bn6#Vandalism Warming (sic), possibly taking offense to me removing his comments) and then a level 4 warning for inappropriately using talk pages (User talk:x42bn6#last warning) (!?).

I am loathe to report him to, say,

23:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, that's the Digimon guy. He's leaving "final warnings" on people's user pages. JuJube 00:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• I concur that
  Parzival418
  00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• There was a new comment added to the above noted related report today at
  Parzival418
  19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Could I get more help on this? I suspect

WP:COIN#DeVry Inc. Vandals and Spammers. There is possibly one user with a conflict of interest but this user is sticking to the talk page as much as possible, and I doubt the rest of us have a conflict of interest - but throwing it around is still harassment. x42bn6 Talk

21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt Yesterday, 9:34pm Post #6

"This is stupid. Hive2 is going back up if those links aren't restored in Michael Snow's article within 24 hours." WAS 4.250 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

He's grasping at straws for leverage. Sean William 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't really pay it any mind, there wasn't really any hope that whole situation could have been resolved so easily anyway. To do something like that over just a couple of links, though...yeah, I would agree with Sean. --

desat

01:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought links to attack sites were disparaged. Corvus cornix 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

desat

01:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES is not likely to become policy, the last attempt ended in a train wreck. — MichaelLinnear

03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the word generally used is "deprecated" rather than "disparaged". (grin) -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I knew that.  :) Corvus cornix 03:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I think they should be returned but have been threatened with blocking if I do so myself [17]. And as someone outed by HM when I absolutely do not want to be outed re my name and location I feel stuck between hell and high water. Any helpful suggestions?

SqueakBox

03:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is baldfaced extortion, in my opinion. It puts Brandt in an even worse light than he's otherwise had. I sympathize with Squeakbox. Through no special wrongdoing admins are treated like blackmail victims and threatened with exposure and harassment if demands are not met. Brandt is welcome to sue the Wikimedia Foundation if he wants to, but to use the identities, home addresses, photographs and other personal information of community members as leverage in a dispute is unethical and possibly even illegal. -Will Beback · † · 08:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is that article even there in the first place? Even putting aside

12:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate Wikipedia news story, had a major impact on last week at Wikipedia, may well be important in further relations with Brandt, who is one of our major critics. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether Attack sites has a "policy" tag on it, attack websites may be removed from Wikipedia. Silly demands should of course be ignored. --Tony Sidaway 14:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Brandt is going to do what he wants with his hive2 page, no matter what anyone else does, while justifying his actions in whatever way suits him. I understand Squeakbox's reasoning, but we do best to take the link out and move on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was extremely supportive of his unblock, because I felt the need to heal for all, as Jimbo did. I still knew that Brandt was a kook, but thought we could all recconcile. Now I realize I was had, and Brandt's not just a kook, but on a level only shared with

18:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

DON'T knock Time cube..... it's serious businesses.

^{Denny Crane.}

22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hivemind's up again. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not surprised at all, really, it was likely a foregone conclusion either way. --

desat

01:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has requested the speedy deletion of his talk page after having his unblock request declined. What strikes me is that his page was also deleted yesterday. Could an admin review him and check whether or not yesterday's deletion was for the same reason and if this user is just trying to remove his vandalism history? -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday's deletion was to remove vandalism warnings - not sure I agree with that. – Riana ^ऋ 11:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I put hangon on the page to point the patrolling admins to this thread. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not to remove vandalism warnings. As your post demonstrates, admins have access to the history - there's nothing hidden and no hidden agenda.

I am trying to zero the page out so it is not posted on so I can exit Wikipedia altogether. That's all that's going on. I couldn't make the request until the block lifted since I couldn't edit it. I then had a post about a request I hadn't even made inserted by Luna Santin.

The sooner I get this page deleted, the sooner I'm history.

Eblem 16:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

moved Eblem's comment to the right section. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Crap, I removed a part of the reply by mistake... Putting it back! Sorry... -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've protected and blanked his attack account talkpage. The parent account's page, user talk:eblem, is just being used for baseless complaints against Luna Santin. I'd like one other admin to review it before I blank and protect that page as well. — coelacan — 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

He kept up the soapboxing; I've gone ahead and protected his talk page. Other admins should feel free to revert me if you disagree and I'm afk and not responding. — coelacan — 23:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Turkish Users

- including the ethnicity. In any case; I'm not used to dealing with category blanking; so here's a list over articles I know where previously in this category:

• Bukan (removed by makalp with edit summary "cleanup", removed by Makalp again)
• Qorveh ("cleanup"
  )
• Hermêle ("cleanup"
  )
• Afrin, Syria ("cleanup")
• Sardasht ("cleanup")
• Saqqez ("cleanup")

Further Clean ups: [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] [[22]] [[23]] [[24]][[25]] [[26]] [[27]] [[28]] [[29]]

Here, they make applications for moving and deletion of Kurdish related articles (The decisions of voting are almost keep)

[[30]] [[31]] [[32]] [[33]] [[34]] [[35]] [[36]] [[37]] [[38]] [[39]] [40]]

Could somebody go through their contributions right now.--Bohater 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My actions were inline with

WP:CAT#Some_general_guidelines #8. "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." -- Cat ^chi?

17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC

Could you explain, for the benefit of those of us who are unfamiliar with Kurdistan, why you would remove a Kurdistan category from an article in which the text of the article claims the place is located in Kurdistan, but not change the text of the article? CMummert · talk 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is a verifiable and reliable source disputing this or any of the following assessments, I'd be happy to take it.

• As per:
  WP:NOT#CBALL
  .
• Kurdistan lacks defined borders. Google image search spits out some examples of inconsistent maps. Even among neutral sources such as dictionaries there is a serious disagreement among the basic area of Kurdistan. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) defines it as "a mountain and plateau region in SE Turkey, NW Iran, and N Iraq: inhabited largely by Kurds" while American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "An extensive plateau region of southwest Asia. Since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, it has been divided among southeast Turkey, northeast Iraq, and northwest Iran, with smaller sections in Syria and Armenia." on the other hand WordNet defines it as "an extensive geographical region in the Middle East to the south of the Caucasus". Webster says "The borders of Kurdistan are hard to define, as none of the states in question acknowledge Kurdistan as a demographical or geographical region."
• As per:
  WP:CAT#Some_general_guidelines #8 states that "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." "Kurdistan" is a controversial term as per examples: (incident #1 (Pentagon apology), (Rumsfeld considers it unfortunate)) (incident #2 (Amsterdam University apology)
  - (turkish)). Putting a "Kurdistan" category on random cities, provinces, lakes, rivers, mountains, and etc appears as an endorsement of Kurdistan's borders and also implies Kurdistan a country status.
• Ignoring the guideline all together (and treating Kurdistan as a geographic region) cities are almost never categorized by geographic regions. Geographic regions are hard to define and often overlap each other. York is not categorized as being a part of Europe but a part of United Kingdom. Political borders are comparatively very easy to define and do not easily change. Practically every city article on Wikipedia is categorized by political borders (country/state/province/etc). I oppose any kind of "geographic" categorization of cities as per the rationale behind
  WP:DNWAUC
  (an essay of mine).

-- Cat ^chi? 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism, content dispute, so please don't label it as such. Moreschi ^Talk 20:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is a content dispute. But since it's here, we might as well look into it. The arguments Cool Cat are making are CFD arguments. I don't know whether the various categories relating to Kurdistan geography have been nominated before, but right now CFD has its fifth nomination of Category:Kurdish inhabited regions. It seems the most recent two were both by Cool cat. Have the geography categories been nominated before? CMummert · talk 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is Makalp too, not only Cat. --Bohater 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would most welcome that. I have been trying to find a solution to this problem for some time now. All of my attempts including mediation failed mostly because all parties involved refused to participate.

"Kurdish inhabited regions" is a census related category not geography. However there is no census data on the actual number of Kurds. Best thing we have is a CIA [gu]estimate. Which is encyclopedic enough to be on an article but not very reliable as a means to categorize (IMHO). Another interesting thing is Category:Hispanic inhabited regions was deleted about a year ago even though actual census data was available. Yet Category:Kurdish inhabited regions was kept as a no consensus which was nominated a day after Hispanic inhabited regions nom.

-- Cat ^chi? 20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought about an RFC to get some outside comments on the issue? The difficulty is that as long as the categories keep surviving CFDs, it implies that some people do think that there is a way to populate them. You might start with an RFC to determine exactly what criteria are required to add an article to Category:Rivers of Kurdistan or Category:Mountains of Kurdistan. CMummert · talk 21:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The mediation case I mentioned was linked via RFC. I was trying to discuss Category:Kurdistan and all subcats. Some such subcats have been deleted over time either by my or other peoples nominations such as Category:Airlines of Kurdistan, or Category:Sport in Kurdistan. I also would like to add that a formal mediation was also filed which also failed due to a lack of participation. I would welcome a 3rd rfc but I am almost convinced it would be fruitless due to a lack of participation. -- Cat ^chi? 21:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is a culture and historical area. Nobody speaks about a political country with official borders. Please don't politize everthing. --Bohater 20:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that in my opinion

WP:CANVASSing purposes to the point of "advertising" commons copyright disputes. -- Cat ^chi?

20:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that is not true, I am Member of this project. On my Opinion, the all 18 members have the rigth to coment here. I don't see here for

WP:CANVASSing. --Bohater

21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific:

WP:CANVASS#Campaigning -- Cat ^chi?

21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this: User:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts is very interesting. --Bohater 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Which lead to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick. I am starting to see parallelizations between that case and this one. -- Cat ^chi? 00:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Darkcurrent (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Well, look at my talk page and you'll get it. Also, Darkcurrent has attacked in

GO!! 16:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but yeah, that's pretty bad as personal attacks go. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. I guess he just needs to calm down. John Reaves (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Says he's gone. Any relation to light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) do we think? Guy (Help!) 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• That occurred to me as well, but the editing style seems very different. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nah, he's not. He just copied
  'NUCKS
  GO!! 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The IP User:24.57.157.81 is contributing and when confronted with the simple question asking if they are User:Benapgar they evade the question. Not the first time, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Benapgar I do not know if the ANI was followed through.

1. Are they even remotely the same - see [41] from long ago in which the user clearly says this IP is the same.
2. Are the edits similar ?. The same subjects are being discussed i.e. Talk page for Atheism as an example.
3. Are they disruptive ?. If you see
   WP:OR
   . For any other user probably let it ride but for a banned user there is no reason why the community needs to tolerate this traffic.

Is it possible to simply block the IP address ?. Ttiotsw 20:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The wording and issues that he cares about are almost identical. I'm going to block the IP. JoshuaZ 06:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody uploaded "goatse" to Wikipedia, and - predictably - it was soon nominated for deletion. The discussion has attracted a number of knee-jerk "keep" votes on the grounds that Wikipedia is not censored; my argument for deletion is the following:

• First, the image has no information on its copyright status. Second, it may well have been made by a professional pornographic performer, and its inclusion on Wikipedia would violate
  fair use
  criterion 2. ("The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.") Third, the non-censorship policy means that Wikipedia articles may contain objectionable images when their inclusion is warranted, not that obviously inappropriate images should be added for the sake of it. Wikipedia is not a shock site or a repository of pornography. Strong (and preferable speedy) delete as copyright violation and vandalism.

I don't want to unilaterally go against the opinion of the community, but

21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.... I'll definitely comment on it......as soon as I get off work. :) ↔NMajdan•talk 21:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hah, glad to know that I'm not the only one that has to delay their activity in the manner. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I speedily deleted per CSDI4: image had no copyright tag (and was clearly copyrighted by the original goatse.cx site).

21:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Errr is the closing process for IFD different than AFD? Someone mind closing it for me, since the image has been speedied?

^{Denny Crane.}

22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Good point, it is not currently detailed at Wikipedia:Deletion process and is only kind of detailed in a subpage of WP:IFD. --Iamunknown 00:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking "fair use" until you said criterion two. Good deletion, case resolved (I think). Abeg92We are all Hokies! 01:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be censored, but I think we should apply some common sense to exactly what we choose to display. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 01:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It was originally uploaded by some guy, its copyright status has never been clear enough for our terms. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm honestly appalled that someone was able to upload that picture of me, I will hang my head in shame. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been accused of wiki-stalking by this...individual (sadly I cannot call him what I wish, per

22:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think you may be being a little sensitive here? Asking someone who nominates your user page for deletion to leave you alone is hardly an accusation of wikistalking. Its understandable that the editor will be upset with you. Disengage and go find something more useful to do. --

Spartaz ^Humbug!

23:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well ok then.
  Nardman1
  23:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

MfD closed and userpage(s) deleted.

Daniel Bryant

00:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block: Poop15040

Well, I'm on a roll - second indefinite blocks in as many days

• inappropriate username (User:Poop15040)
• vandalism only acocunt (contributions)
• creation of attack page (
  Rico (Hannah Montana)
  )

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this a block review? If so, good block. — coelacan — 00:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate username+vandalism=indef. Seems clear enough to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And how. Natalie 01:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just blocked this bot for 2 reasons;

• t has not been approved.
• Welcoming bots are impersonal to new users and have been shot down everytime they have been proposed.

Pleaase could somebody review this block and unblock if required? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As an unauthorized bot, a block is definitely justified.

WP:BOT does state that human assisted bots "don't necessarily need bot approval," but also states that a consensus should be made before making a large series of edits. Also note the speed at which the account is editing; appears unassisted. I'll leave whether the bot is necessary up to the bot proposal guys. - auburnpilot talk

01:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Assisted bots don't need bot approval, as I personally post every message the bot composes.

2) At this point, the welcome committee is not staffed to welcome any reasonable percentage of new users. I feel that any welcome (be it by a bot) is better then no welcome. I direct them to my user page if they need help, as well as giving them several links for help. This has been a success as i have already had users ask questions to me because they were not already welcomed and they didnt know where to go \ what to do. I've been able to successfully give advice to these user, who would have normally been lost.

3) I feel this message is personal, even although its not unique, it gives the user someone they can contact and count on for help.

4) In conclusion, I ask for my 'bot' (whom really just saves me time in composing the message) to be unblocked so that i may welcome new users and give them guidance and support that they otherwise would not receive (besides a small percentage).

Thank you for your time and I respectfully welcome any decision. My intentions were nothing but for the best. Thank you, Matthew Yeager 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

5) Although the speed of edits is high, every post is composed, then i review it. If i manually approve it, its added to the jobs to be completed. I can choose when to run the bots "edit" feature. For example, I can choose to have the bot compose 20 messages, then i would go through and ensure each message is correct, then i can tell the bot to edit and then it posts the messages. This can be seen as the edits are made quickly, but then there is substantial down time in between runs, as i am checking the messages. Matthew Yeager 01:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If the edits are approved manually, then the bot doesn't need approval. But the high edit rate is discouraged (the

02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lowered edit rate agreed. down to say 5 - 6 edits a minute (pretty sure thats the guildline) unless you will allow me to do more, either way is cool with me. thank you for proposing an unblock. please let me know if/when it will/has taken place. Matthew Yeager 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've blocked several blatant vandals recently only to find a message from this bot already on their talk page welcoming them (eg User talk:Ockasekrockaway). There was a user the other day welcoming blatant Mr Oompapa impersonator socks [43], and thanking them for their contributions. Sometimes, auto-welcomes are just silly. It seems the height of impersonability. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 02:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

5-6 per minute is acceptable for AWB and so it should be fine. If nobody else (including Ryan Postlethwaite) comments in 15 minutes or so, since Ryan asked above for someone else to unblock if required, I'll do it. I'm going to reread the bot guidelines in the meantime. Either way someone will let you know. CMummert · talk 02:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the bot issue, it's still semi-automatic welcome messages, and something the community is not warm to. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot has been fixed to never over write previous messages. it should have never been doing that to start.

although the community is not 'warm' to the issue, as explained above, this seems to be the best way to help these new users who dont know what is going on. currently, without the bot, I watch 50 new users at a time go by without a welcoming, direction, or a person to go to for help.Matthew Yeager 02:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I made an announcement at

the bot noticeboard

to draw attention here.

I am willing to unblock the bot, to relieve any tension about it being blocked. But, in light of the objections raised here, I think it would be a show of good faith if you don't start the welcoming again until tomorrow (27 April). A delay will give others a chance to comment. Does that seem reasonable? CMummert · talk 03:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the block is justified. The Community has for good reason been long opposed to welcome Bots. This account is in rather a

03:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking the bot would be appreciated. I will withhold any actions from the bot until a decision is met. If its decided that the bot shall not be needed, then i shall wish to retire it as appose to having it blocked. This way it may be used to greet users the 'old fashion way'. Does this seem acceptable ? Matthew Yeager 03:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe - I think that the username is acceptable (the bot policy is somewhat complicated). The

section on assisted bots says that they don't necessarily need approval and that a separate username is recommended. Since the user has agreed to discuss the issue, my personal opinion is that the bot account can be unblocked as a measure of good faith. I won't go over your objection, however. CMummert · talk

03:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This one area where username policy is fairly clear: "Names that... Imply an automated account, such as names containing "robot", "bot", or a variation thereof." In my opinion using scripts to welcome users is fine so long as:

• It is done by an account that doesn't claim to be a Bot- why have impersonal welcomes anyway?
• Only users who have actually made edits are welcomed.

I don't understand why Matthew Yeager doesn't just welcome users with his own account- which would seem much friendlier. That being said I have no objection to a courtesy unblocking while discussions continue if you really think that would help... WjBscribe 04:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree it would be more personal to use his actual username. I'm going to unblock, as a courtesy, since the M. Yeager has agreed not to run the bot setup until discussion proceeds. Even though the bot being blocked shouldn't affect much, I think if I were him I would breathe easier if my bot account wasn't blocked (and I have one). CMummert · talk 04:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks to both of you for the agreed unblock. the only reason i didnt use my own account is after ready the BOTS section which said that if you were planning on making edit a large number of edit for a specific reason then that would be allowed. so i figured that i would have a normal account specialized in editing and reverting vandalism and then a separate account for welcoming users and answering beginners questions, so that the normal account didnt get flooded with those questions. that reasoning + using scrips to compose the message sent to the user, i figured that justified "bot" being placed in the name, as the naming convention for human assisted bots does not mention not having 'bot' in the name, nor does it recommend a different word that should be used. so from that, i picked a separate account and to use the word bot in it.

I would be willing to apply for a name change and then use that separate account as originally intended, yet without the high rate of impersonalized welcome messages. a name without bot, but an account separate from my main account. example: Matthew.B.Yeager. sound reasonable ? Matthew Yeager 04:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me- I think a more personal username to welcome people with would be a lot friendlier. Please do check whether the accounts you welcome have actually edited. Unfortunately most new accounts never edit Wikipedia- there doesn't seem much to be gained from adding hundreds of pages a day to Wikipedia for such accounts. WjBscribe 04:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

awesome, it appears we have reached a solution that we agree on. I will be checking to ensure accounts have edited. thank you all for your time and i'm glad i was able to work with patient and reasonable administration. Matthew Yeager 04:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• This user is frequently creating articles to publicize his own "ATB Productions" company, and I think someone needs to sit down with him and tell him about the rules. I'd do it, but I'm not really in any condition to reasonably talk about Wikipedia policy right now (high on Vicodin atm). JuJube 02:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just did some quick math and calculated that the archives of AN/I plus this page total approximately 9,300,000 words, or slightly more than 16 times the length of the English translation of War and Peace. Not admin related, but I thought the admins would get a kick out of it. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, and how long did it take you to count them all?! :) Ryan Postlethwaite 01:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Half as long as it takes to read War and Peace? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The obvious next step is to publish AN/I as a book. Or translate it into Russian... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"День на предупреждении администратора" (or "A day on the Administrator's noticeboard", loosely translated), by Tolstoy.

^{Denny Crane.}

16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, I thought there was an allusion here to Solzhenitsyn's first published book. -- llywrch 17:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The amount of drama would make it an instant success among rings of teenage girls. // Sean William 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It was easy - I took archive forty-something and archive 220-something, put them into Microsoft Word, averaged the word counts, and did some multiplication. It took five minutes, which is about .2% of the 42 hours it took me to read War and Peace last semester. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I always knew people spent more time here instead of here, but that's pretty outrageous! :) – Riana ^ऋ 03:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As a non-admin, there's not much I can do besides read AN and AN/i. Well, except for newpages patrol. hbdragon88 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, this is sorta the same theory that you could pick two chapters (out of 365) of the novel and pass the final... :P   Shenme 05:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Some more fodder: there have been 51302 edits to

) 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was able to access the AN/I stats, and I took pictures of the stats page and uploaded them:

08:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot the monthly summary:

masterka

08:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg didn't establish the page, the server clock just got messed up. See this diff. Graham87 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'd strongly suggest increasing the sample and posting the results as a mini-essay in Category:Wikipedia statistics (and essay cat), like I did with this.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to build a top-10 social networking site and an encyclopedia of policy with one meeeeeeeeeellion rules, guidelines and processes - David Gerard 10:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia IRC is not to be logged or redistributed. It seems one user may have posted such a log to Conservapedia. He says he had permission but when I inquired as to details, he deleted the entire discussion thread.[44] There may be a perfectly good explanation but as an occasional IRC participant I'd appreciate some clarification. Is prior notice given when IRC is logged? Thanks - Raymond Arritt 00:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Haven't those who have violated the prohibition in the past been blocked? --Iamunknown 00:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  Blocked? I can see where they would be banned from IRC, but blocking seems severe for an off-wiki offense. Besides, blocking Ed Poor wouldn't accomplish anything. Sean William 00:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  For the record, I was there for all that, he got permission from the people, and the no-logging policy exempts relevent cuts with unrelated comments removed and the permission of participants. -

  M^ask?

  01:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  OK, thanks for the clarification. Good to know how these things work. Raymond Arritt 01:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  Sean, I was thinking of someone (Karmafist maybe?) who was blocked for posting IRC logs. I don't have any diffs or block logs. Sorry. --Iamunknown 01:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you don't want to risk having your messages logged, you probably shouldn't be using IRC in the first place. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  It's one thing to protect ones personal data. It's an entirely different question what Wikipedia officially tolerates.--Stephan Schulz 12:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User:MUNCH0000 admitted on my userpage that he owns 22 sock puppet accounts, previously thought (and still suspected) to be sock puppets of User:Danh90. I reported this on AIV, but was told to come here. In my opinion, the user should be blocked, as their vandalism [45] and other edits [46] are the same as the Danh90 vandalism. All other accounts (below) were blocked after vandalising, I don't see why this is any different...

• User:Danh90
• User:Nonpayer
• User:Timewaste
• User:How3
• User:Lou22
• User:Thevandal999
• User:Kburps
• User:Notenough
• User:Idontliketheimage
• User:Theman0
• User:81.149.196.44
• User:135.196.237.139
• User:Oldman50
• User:Antitrampikeygroup22
• User:AntiAnemoneProjectorsgroup
• User:LICKMYSCUM
• User:Thejok
• User:ANTITRAMPIKEY
• User:MUNCH0000
• User:86.136.0.96
• User:86.147.104.9
• User:Antiben
• User:86.138.157.207

-Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Danh90 -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The article says straight out: "In the May 2007 issue of WWE Magazine, readers got a chance to see a collection of profiles of the 10 'contestants' for The Condemned." and then copies the content into the article. I removed it, and got accused of vandalism, so I'm bringing it to the Admins' attention. --69.22.254.111 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've remade what appears to have been your original edit. Please check and verify that all the offending material is gone, and thank you for catching this. Removing a copyvio is definitely not vandalism; in fact, it's one of the most helpful things you can do for Wikipedia. Picaroon 01:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so very much! I agree it's important to remove blatant copyvios quickly.

But

Assume Good Faith. Please help. --69.22.254.111

03:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And now I've seen that he's attacked other editors as well: [47] --69.22.254.111 03:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PureRED. Is this some sort of bot? This user was just denied the use of VandalProof. Corvus cornix 16:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar has been aggressive against me personally repeatedly and it has been provenly impossible to resolve NPOV issues on talk pages with him. Just today he deleted - without prior discussion - several edits I did on Andreas Heldal-Lund here, here and here. Instead of trying to reach a consensus here is busy "collecting dirt".

I am asking for Admin assistance to settle with this person so that disruptive edits and PAs stop.

03:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute over undue weight in the article lead, as well as you trying to insert

dispute resolution. — coelacan

— 03:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It appears that Antaeus Feldspar was properly following our policy concerning

Undue weight. If you ensure that your future edits follow these policies you should not have further problems. Otherwise, pursue dispute resolution as suggested by coelacan. Newyorkbrad

03:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I will take a wild guess that COFS is a sock of User:AI. 75.62.7.22 05:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is pulling your strings, Mr. Anonymous?

COFS

18:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

COFS couldn't possibly stand for Church OF Scientology, could it. Returned banned user or troll, I suggest - best ignored. We actually have Scientologists and indeed Church staff members writing on the Scientology pages, and barring the occasional rancorous talk page row or Arbitration case it's been IMO (as a staunch critic) really good for NPOV in a tricky area. I think everyone working on those articles to write an encyclopedia can agree that neither side is very fond of people coming on and acting like dicks - David Gerard 10:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

COFSs stands for nothing specific. To put it on record, I have never been banned nor sockpuppeted anything anywhere, neither on Wikipedia nor anywhere else. I agree with you,

COFS

18:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A new situation I haven't encountered before is a user who has placed blatantly false info on his user page. My impression is that user pages are normally sacrosanct, but I am tempted to remove the material or blank the page. I blocked the user for repeated vandalism a little while ago. The user is User:ChrisMorello. Thoughts? Pollinator 04:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not happy about the userpage, which is misleading. If the user put up a "joke" template, like the one at
  WP:BJ, that would solve the problem. YechielMan
  04:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See Sour Cherry. See 66.240.89.10 put in bogus information. See User:ChrisMorello get created. See User:ChrisMorello's first edit, to Sour Cherry. See User:ChrisMorello enshrine himself. See User:ChrisMorello get blocked for vandalism. Idohno, ya think he'll be a good-fella, and blank his user page? Shenme 07:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple anon IP edits to Adam Savage have just been reverted, which claimed the articles subject had passed away today. No information can be found to support this claim on the usual sources inc. Google News, nor did the change include any factual or cited source to back up the change. It has since been reverted by VegitaU. These unsourced edits were in place for a period of 7min total. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. If anyone feels it appropriate to undo the semi-protection, go ahead, but we should have a few people watching the article.

masterka

05:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Crap... Someone did it to

masterka

08:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this like something

Somethingawful or 4chan would cook up? Or just another bad Internet meme?--293.xx.xxx.xx

11:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Who the heck knows, but it's caused another couple of articles to appear on my permanent watchlist. Seriously, it's just getting lame with BIO articles to the point where they almost all need semi. Thanks for the quick response to this. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've recently added clean-up templates to Aldol condensation and Overman rearrangement because I'm concerned about the lack of any introduction to the articles. These were removed by editors who made no actual improvements to the articles, but in my opinion, removed them because they didn'tw want to fix the article. However, User:Quale has reverted the templates [48], [49], claiming I was being disruptive. However, I think that this is an unfair accusation that is based on his personal animosity for me, which is demonstrated in several personal attacks he has made against me. See: [50], where it's clear that he has developed some sort of personal animosity against me because I have concerns about the way Chess articles are handled. These concerns are similar to the ones these science pages have as well, but simply reverting them? I feel it is a harassment concern, and since I've tried Wikiquette without getting any kind of change in his behavior or attitude, I don't know what else to do. I don't want this problem to get worse. FrozenPurpleCube 05:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem continues. [51] with a revert claiming a request for further information be added to an article is disruptive. FrozenPurpleCube 07:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are taking critcism far too personally. Also, putting a {{

not a good idea, especially in the midst of a debate with him. Sjakkalle (Check!)

11:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, he's clearly engaged in personal attacks against me. I'm sorry, but when somebody makes personal attacks against me. I'm going to ask him to not make personal attacks against me. I tried politeness in the discussion. It continued. Sorry, but it's wrong behavior, and perhaps if you were truly neutral and unbiased yourself, you'd see it as the problem it is. Maybe you don't care that I feel I'm being attacked, but experienced or not, hostile attitudes are bad things, and that's exactly what I see. But to you, perhaps he's a friend, and you'd rather criticize me. Thank you, but no, I'd rather hear from somebody not involved in the situation themselves. You're not. So, please, step out. Your attempt at participation is only increasing my concern. FrozenPurpleCube 12:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

) 10:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Myself and Gwernol are keeping an eye on him. He's a couple of edits away from another block. –

Steel

10:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Steel for being on the ball. Cheers. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The inevitable has happened, let's tag this as resolved. –

Steel

10:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/91.105.170.98. How would I go about requesting a sock-puppet check? Andy Mabbett 13:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You can file a request over at

WP:SSP. Just follow the directions - Alison ☺

13:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems this IP was blocked earlier for vandalism, and is now back online. Since being unblocked, users from this IP have added things like "dick in the ass" in

17:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• WP:AIV--VectorPotential^Talk
  17:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Diyarbakir

• Diyarbakir (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground

User had been tagging random cities with "Category:Kurdistan" [53] [54]. When the categories were removed as per

I do not believe [s]he is a new user given the nature of the edits. Being as inactive as [s]he is, his/her ability to notice such category removals is also suspicious. Especially on articles where [s]he has no edits which may involve

WP:HA

.

Although registering as far back as 13 September 2006, user has fewer than 100 edits of which most seems to be voting (keepinging kurdistan), categorizing (adding Kurdistan) or reverting (restoring Kurdistan).

-- Cat ^chi? 15:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Without making a comment on the sockpuppet issue (I think I side with you on that, it feels like an established editor) I must point out that those are not 'random cities' but cities that are in the region commonly known as

M^ask?

17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute. The user avoids discussion and merely reverts without relying on any kind of sources nor discussion. Entire contribution seems to be revering. Users with similar edit patterns have been banned before such as

WP:V suggests that I should be able to "verify" these issues without relying on someones personal belief system. I have every reason to remove anything that can't be "verifiable" unless evidence to the contrary (verifiable info) is provided. -- Cat ^chi?

17:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Diyarbakir could be sourced to Turkish Kurdistan specifically, and the 11 provinces the Kurds have in Turkey at The parent Kurdistan page over at GlobalSecurity.org fairly easily. Right wing think tank or not, they do do exhaustive research. -

M^ask?

17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is User:Diyarbakir's user conduct. This is ANB/I not the articles/categories talk page. Please take your content related arguments there. Your argument is not inline with Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines #8 -- Cat ^chi? 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It really is. Your argument is that the user is a policy-breaking sock. I'm pointing out that the actions were inline with policy and as such the sock cant be rightfully classed as abusive unless the owners been banned. Want to try again? We can start the conversation over now that we know where each others coming from :) -

M^ask?

18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have said all I have to say. This isn't a content discussion, instead it is a request of admin review. Admin's will decide weather or not to take action. Smudging it with a content dispute is disruptive IMHO. -- Cat ^chi? 19:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So now you're accusing AKMask of being "disruptive", for pointing out that the user you've accused of being "suspicious" hasn't made any abusive edits? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I consider revert wars disruptive yes, thats what Diyarbakir is doing. Locating CfD on 10th edit is more than enough to suspect Diyarbakir to be a sockpuppet. As for AKMask, I do not recall making an accusation. If it looked that way please disregard. That was not the intention. -- Cat ^chi? 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Would an administrator comment on the edit behavior of this user? -- Cat ^chi? 12:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not paid enough to get involved. Speaking as an Admin, & having looked not only at Diyarbakir's edits, but also such fora including Category talk: Kurdistan (discussion stalled since February, page protected) & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan, that's my comment on this entire conflict -- Diyarbakir, you & Kurdistan. -- llywrch 22:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also a volunteer. I see no point in this post. -- Cat ^chi? 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is simple: no warnings, no discussion of this matter on Diyarbakir's Talk page or on the pages I linked to. Add to that silence the fact that some parts of Turkey are considered part of Kurdistan (I'm too lazy to find a cite, but Category:Kurdistan appears to have one or two), & there's enough bad faith for everyone to have a helping. Getting people to settle on which authority to use to justify putting a category tag on some Turkish provinces would be a good place to start -- not coming here & complaining about another editor's contributions. Asking an Admin to get involved at this stage is the equivalent of asking someone to do your homework. Need I say more? -- llywrch 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: this was concurrently on

03:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have posted this at

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir and found some interesting additional evidence. -- Cat ^chi?

13:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Since at this time you're the only person who's posted to that page, there are no checkuser results to consider. There's just your complaint that after you'd filed an MfD on Portal:Kurdistan and CfDs on Kurdistan categories, Diyarbakir (who's been adding Category:Kurdistan tags) opposed the deletions. How is his/her consistent support of Kurdistan topics any more abusive than your consistent attempts to delete them from Wikipedia? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I also note that you filed WP:RFARB#Category:Kurdistan earlier this month, only to have it declined as a content dispute. "Category:Kurdistan" also underlies your present complaint, forum-shopped to these two noticeboards. Please stop trying to use disciplinary procedures as leverage in your content dispute.

Finally, I notice that you have never posted to User talk:Diyarbakir (history), either to try settling your dispute with him/her before bringing it here, or to notify him/her of your bringing this complaint. See the top of this page: "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting." Here you are in the wrong, Cool Cat. Please take more care with your own behavior. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to file an RfAr case. Please stop this nonsense. That very "evidence" you point out had been filed by Moby Dick. Arbcom actually reviewed that allegedly disruptive noms mentioned in your evidence. I do not see the point of you posting replies to me since you are not even listening. Also you can post this on one location. -- Cat ^chi? 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Diyarbakir = Moby Dick

21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Diyarbakir is now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet per the checkuser and arbitration cases (block log). --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Misou (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Multiple warnings (not from myself) on the User's talk page. Seems to be a repeated pattern, the warnings don't seem to do much good. Warnings related to policies:

.

Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive229#Possible_Tendentious_editing_by_User:Steve_Dufour_and_User:Misou

Relevant troublesome DIFFs:

1. WP:HARASS (revealing user's personal info) - [57]
2. poison dripping off your teeth now again - [58],
3. knucklehead like Touretzky - [59],
4. You might want to spill some cold water in your face as you must be dreaming - [60],
5. PFUI (name of editor) - [61],
6. so obviously tainted by anti-Scientology POVs that I could puke - [62],
7. If this is all you have to contribute to my request you might as well shut up - [63]
8. Propaganda shit removed. disrelated material goes. Bye2 - [64]
9. Whoever put this in there should be sued by the Scientologists for libel. How blind can you be to leave this in so long? - [65]
10. (Undid revision 120657435 by F.Obstruso. WP:VANDAL!!! You should get shot from water pistols by the partisan squad.) - [66]

Yours,

17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

And these:

1. This was constructive editing until you - Mr. Know-it-all - showed up here. Don't you have enough problems at home? [67]
2. PS, and your WP:OR statements should go where the sun never shines [68]

I have made an effort not only to warn the user for each violation, but to be civil myself (although he says that I am "cynical"). --Tilman 17:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for a week. I'm not a big fan of abusive editors who think they can game the system. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am particularly disturbed by the editor's behavior cited in reason #1. In the edit summary block he calls out another editor by what he believes to be their real name. He received this information from one

Vivaldi (talk

) 04:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have witnessed that almost all the Anti-Scientologists have coloured Misou's discussion's page (See Misou talk page archive) with anti-User propaganda and this was done almost in sequence. Is that all the ambition of some Wikipedia admins to blindly favour such tactics ? --Jpierreg 10:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

One week block too long?

An editor, on Misou's talk page, has raised a concern with the length of time for the block. Anyone else want to weigh in? I think it was reasonable, considering the full knowledge the editor had that their behavior was disruptive (specifically, not only had they been warned several times, but they actively engaged the warning editors and responded to the warnings, eliminating any doubt that they could have missed them). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not support uncivilized comments. However, this does not appear to be a clear cut case of uncivil remarks. Tilman and Misou seem to have diametrically opposed viewpoints. While I do not condone Misou's choice of words, I also feel that Tilman helps set the tone, and thus encourages Misou to react rather than respond. His comments are often blunt, matter of fact and curt. While perhaps technically WP:CIVIL, they do little to encourage compromise and discussion. These two will probably never see eye to eye and be best friends, but I believe that Tilman does very little to reduce the tension.

Immediately after one of the remarks was made, Tilman posted a warning on Misou's page. While perhaps technically proper (I don't know), I felt that it did little to reduce tension. I posted on both users' pages. On Tilman's I posted that I felt it would be better if he let someone else 'warn', rather than giving the appearance of being righteous and increasing tension. On Misou's page, I posted that he was out of line and not helping himself. However, I did not intend to be counted as one of multiple users warning him as I feel that is overstating it.

I have not been on wiki long enough to know what punishment fits what crime. You have my overall views on these two and you are welcome to apply them in whatever manner you see is just. -Peace in God. Lsi john 20:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Misou has indeed used uncivilized wording in some of his heated edits and responses, making it difficult to defend him, however after reading through the cited violations above, some appear to be a bit overstated. Whether they all qualify for wp:civil is for someone else to decide, however I do recommend reading the history around them before making a long-term decision. Lsi john 21:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize that this block came from ANI so I had posted on Misou's talk page and I thank EVula for bringing up my concern here. Irrespective of warnings or discussions, this is Misou's 1st block, right? Then I think 24-hours would have sufficed and, for a stern warning, 48-hours as a maximum. And yes, Misou has risen to bait on occasion but, rather than over-analyze, can we just give him a more reasonable block and move on? That is all. Thanks. --Justanother 22:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm an analyst. I analyze and analyze... But, I agree that a week was harsh. -Peace in God. Lsi john 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To those questioning the length of the block, please look at some of the past discussions about these issues in

Anynobody

00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the length of the block was appropriate considering the frequent instances of violation of wikipedia editing policy. It was fair and just.--Fahrenheit451 01:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Having observed much of the above unfold as it happened, I feel this block (and its length) is appropriate. Robertissimo 05:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Block is inappropriate and reflects taking "side" to anti-editors Misou might be temperamental but be bold and

02:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Block is appropriate for user who continually abuses the system and repeatedly disregards the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. His contempt for Wikipedia and its editors is repeatedly shown in his comments and edit summaries.

Vivaldi (talk

) 04:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

IAR has no bearing on civility; I suggest you re-read the policy before throwing it into a debate about someone's behavior.
Also, please

assume good faith; I'm not taking sides in any "side" in anything. EVula // talk // ☯

// 04:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support one week block - per
  Anynobody. In my opinion, the blocking admin hasd acted correctly and appropriately. There appears to be more than uncivil behavior to justify such a block; specifically the violation of privacy concern with regards to editors' names. The uncivil behavior cited has often occured. Orsini
  13:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• This looks valid to me, I endorse the block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Throwing myself against the lions here, but I reject the length of the block as inappropriate for a first violation. As a note, I find it unfair and uncivil to come along afterwards (with
  COFS
  03:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  The editor got by without any previous blocks by slipping through the cracks. Given the technicality, I see no reason why we should blindly enforce such a narrow-minded process of blocks. Misou had been warned numerous times to become more civil, and he never did. To blindly hold to some arbitrary notion of block duration is silly, in my opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  My opinion is that "slipping through the cracks" is a rather arbitrary assessment of what happened. How do you know that s/he would not have stopped once warned properly by non-involved editors or an Admin?

  COFS

  21:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  Uh, possibly because he didn't stop after being warned? Strikes me as pretty strong evidence... EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This article was AFD'd at

does not appear to be an administrator, so could not have deleted the history in any event.

1. - Can someone delete the copyvios from the article history?
2. - I'm a little rusty on AFD closing rules. Who is entitled to close an AFD? Who is entitled to close one early? Are normal users permitted to do either of those things? If they are, should they not close AFDs that require actions upon closing that only an administrator can perform?

exolon

16:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Anybody can close a unanimous AFD (though they may not want to
  WP:SNOW it), and anybody can close one that's been withdrawn by the nom (as long as nobody else has taken the nom's position in the interim). It's generally not a good idea for non-admins to close ones requiring admin action, for the reasons you've already noted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!)
  16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info - the copyvios are still in the history so that still needs doing.
    exolon
    18:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorted. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually someone else redirected, but I closed it. This is resolved. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 22:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Pate - sdpate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has emailed OTRS (ticket 857097) to complain that the article Disability rights in Prince Edward Island is his own work and he revokes the license to use it; as we know, you can't revoke the grant of license so that's a non-starter. He's been blocked for blanking it. Two things come from this, though.

First, I encourage others to review that user's contributions. They appear to present a particular slant on Canadian politics (read: POV).

Second, the article on disability rights in Prince Edward Island seems rather odd. The subject rather specific, there is no link to the

) 19:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone's nominated it for deletion.

However, someone may want to help Stephan with the GFDL as he has now written on his user talk page:

The article Disability Rights on Prince Edward Island was written in April 2007 by Stephen Pate. Stephen Pate is the exclusive copyright owner of this work. The author has forbidden its publication, copying, use or modification by anyone, including Wikipedia and its agents.

Continued wrongful use of this article may result in civil penalties of any jurisdiction in North America and Europe being imposed on Wikipedia and any independent editors who violate the copyright. Please take heed of this notice.Sdpate 18:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing it out. --Ali'i 19:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

These he has emailed me with to point out the continued media pressure (?) he'll keep on the 'pedia if we dont delete it: http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=24649&sc=110 and http://peidisabilityalert.blogspot.com/2007/04/news-flash-wikipedia-editor-may-be.html -

20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A bit of background I know of: This week's signpost contains an

pov}}. I reverted this change on the grounds that it was a newspaper article not an encyclopaedia article; however I think it is not generally a good idea to go writing Signpost articles about issues in which you are yourself involved. Sam Blacketer

22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Continued wrongful use of this article may result in civil penalties of any jurisdiction in North America and Europe being imposed on Wikipedia and any independent editors who violate the copyright." Blocking Sdpate for legal threat.

^{Denny Crane.}

22:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Too late, Naconkantari got to it first.

^{Denny Crane.}

22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I nominated it for deletion, because while ANI can get the guy blocked, it probably won't delete the article except under extraordinary circumstances.
  Nardman1
  22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The attempt to revoke the GFDL is obviously invalid, but the article is clearly not going to survive AfD. Any objection to my speedying the thing and saving us 5 more days of aggravation? Before anyone says this would set a bad precedent, I know it's been quietly done several times before. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Do it, if it is a notable subject someone else will decide to write about it. It has absolutely no incoming links from mainspace. If someone wants to make pointy-headed, vaguely-threatening, GFDL positions then just be rid of their GFDL contributions. SchmuckyTheCat 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I really hate to give in to somebody who is being such a pain, but really, really--is keeping this article worth it? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• 149.101.1.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Vandal briefly stopped after second warning ... then once he saw that he wasn't being blocked (see previous report below), he started up again here with repetitive, redundant multiple links.

• Note: This IP matches the mask (149.101.0.0/16) in my
  Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses for important information before blocking" HBC AIV helperbot3
  22:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• - despite two warnings continues to add repetitive, redundant multiple links at Harvey Awards. -- Tenebrae 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC) ^{(Moved by bot)}
• Note: This IP matches the mask (149.101.0.0/16) in my
  Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses for important information before blocking" HBC AIV helperbot2
  19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No edits since recent warnings - leave on file for a short while and then delete. Ian Cairns 19:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this thread from

) 23:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What separates someone at the USDOJ (a huge cabinet level agency with tens of thousands of employees) vandalizing comic book articles from someone at some other employer? This isn't a situation that needs special handling just because the IP is from a special place. SchmuckyTheCat 23:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Public relations? --Iamunknown 23:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No discussion needed, I think. They were warned, no edits for a few hours, you can move on to your next victim :) --kingboyk 23:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

Not sure what the above comment means. The user stopped for a while, and when he saw nothing was happening to him, he simply started up again. I guess he's gone home for the night, but it doesn't seem right to keep having to rv his vandalism -- I could wind up a 3RR that way. --Tenebrae 23:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply if you are fighting vandalism. As it's a shared IP, we consider the vandalism warning enough; we don't block as "punishment", we block to prevent damage. As it's stopped, that's the of the matter. If it resumes, and you spot it, please feel free to drop another note here. --kingboyk 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, if anybody blocks that IP, someone needs to notify ComCom immediately. Sean William 00:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. But assuming it's stopped now, there's no reason to block. --kingboyk 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted today's offerings from the same IP address. There may be good edits in there, but I'm not going to wade through 37 edits picking and choosing. I suppose two days in a row rules out "bring your child to the office day" ? Shenme 18:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We really do need help here, DoJ or no. This obsessive anon-IP doesn't respond to our entreaties nor our warnings. He will stop for several hours or a day, and then start right back up again. Please. Can't something be done? --Tenebrae 03:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected

Harvey Award. Now I'm contemplating putting up a semi-protection notice that reads "this article has been sem-protected to prevent an anonymous vandal at the United States Department of Justice from defacing the article." Does shame work with such people? ··coelacan

04:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Although, hell, maybe "shame" isn't the right idea in the first place. What if they really do have OCD? I really haven't seen anything like this. ··coelacan 04:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a slow motion edit war in progress at

. Talk page seems to be running majority but not consensus against (gun is notable in massacre, but massacre isn't notable from gun's standpoint), with a significant vocal minority arguing that the massacre is notable from the gun's standpoint. Multiple people on both sides are reverting it back and forth several times a day, each staying under 3RR but collectively up to about 10RR yesterday and about 6 today, on each side, if I counted right.

Talk page discussion has been ranging from reasonable to hot and cold running slander. I asked people to calm the discussion down and it failed miserably.

Could we have an uninvolved impartial admin review? I have a personal bias on which is the correct answer and don't want to touch any special buttons on this case. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 01:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• This came up before with the
  Mannlicher-Carcano is with Oswald. Night Gyr (talk/Oy
  ) 01:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that by that standard, nearly ever U.S. police shooting would have to mention it, since Glock 19's are in use by a SIGNIFICANT number of offices and departments.

^{Denny Crane.}

03:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is also closely related to the Walther P22 edit war, it being the other handgun carried by Cho, which surprisingly enough has seemingly reached a more stable position, albeit one of non-consensus. Unlike in the Glock 19 article, this discussion has fallen more closely to a 50:50 split, with no clear consensus. A potential compromise has been proposed, to mention the Va Tech Massacre in only a See also section, and this has reached a semi-stable stasis in just the last 24 hours. As a former participant in the Glock 19 and Walther P22 debates, as well as in the earlier Cx4 debate, Dawson College, and several other shooting debates, I have intentionally tried to keep out of latest parts of the two recent discussions by not responding to potentially slanderous comments, although I did post an RfC on the Walther P22 page to try and take some of the heat away from the article itself. It seems to have helped the article reach the previously-mentioned semi-stasis. 3RR blocks have also helped calm some of the more vocal participants. Being that both sides are extremely vocal and convinced that their position is somehow the only one, I don't believe that a full mention, nor a complete non-mention, will ultimately work on either of the two articles. Yaf 04:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly from other past edits, the Gun guys have strongly objected to any mentions of "Pop Culture" references, and this is pretty much echoed as a what Wikipedia is not) (see this talk page discussion as an example. Pretty much, gun pages should be about the gun itself, not a trivia repository about every little media apperance and infamous shooting escapade.--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as I posted this, I had to look at the

Walther PPK, and sure enough, there is a little Pop Culture blurb about James Bond. At least the Walther_P99 has a model that is officially licensed as an offical James Bond merchendise. Well, there goes my "Pop Culture Bad!!" arguement. --293.xx.xxx.xx

11:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that there's a slight difference, as the Walther has been associated with Bond for around fifty years. When I was involved in the Cx4 discussion, my question was whether it will remain significant - if you were discussing the issue five, ten, twenty years down the road, will people remember that the Dawson College (or Virginia Tech) weapons were particular ones? The Walther PPK in particular is remembered as Bond's gun; I personally doubt the Glock 19 or Walther P22 will be remembered as the Virginia Tech guns. I think it would be helpful for the future for the Firearms Wikigroup to work on guidelines of some sort in regards to what is significant enough for inclusion. And with all this said, I'm going to try to stay out of the rest of the discussion, since I have family in that region and cannot consider myself as holding an NPOV on the topic. The Dark 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

293.xxx, us "gun guys" only generally want pop culture sections when it's about a significant cultural icon: James Bond's classic suaveness came partially from his having a PPK, he didn't need a big honking american M1911 .45. Bond's PPK is a significant cultural icon that is remembered by millions around the world. In one year, who will remember that Cho used a Glock 19, or a Walther P22? It is completely irrelevant to the information of the gun, exactly which criminal events it was used in. When the gun itself is particularly notable, for instance, debate over the Barret M82 series of .50 anti-material rifles in "crime", then it may be worth including. However, there is no particular big debate over the Glock 19's usage in crime: it's quite literally ubiquitous around the world by police forces, militaries, private citizens, and criminals. Most people couldn't even tell you what a Glock 19 looks like, but they are going to tell the world it is important to know that this particular shooter used it in this particular shooting?

^{Denny Crane.}

16:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article because there's ongoing reverts to the article. This needs to be worked out with consensus and people are a bit too worked up at the moment for that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Night ggyr: there is quite clear consensus on the talk page that it should not be includable. I don't dispute your protection, due to the edit warring, but I've restored the version without the "see also" link, per the article's talk page. At last check, I noticed an almost 3:1 preference on the glock article to exclude the reference. This is not the Walther article, where there is no consensus yet: the thoughts of the community on this topic are quite clear, and it is only a few disruptive editors who keep messing with it.

19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it is 14 editors against, to 5 editors for inclusion. That's pretty clear consensus to me. Accordingly, I've removed the sentence, and left a comment on the article talk that consensus HAS been reached, and further attempts to disrupt the article will not be looked upon kindly.

20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you reread what Yaf had to say. For all intents and purposes, the Glock19 and P22 discussions are one in the same. There is no consensus in the P22 article and the only reason you had a consensus on the Glock19 is because not everyone cared to post in there. The Keep voters from the P22 could just as easily post keep comments in the Glock19 page and there goes your presumed consensus. Take the two pages as a whole, that is what they are. Alyeska 22:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, for all intents and purposes, the discussions are not the same. The reason there was a consensus on the Glock 19 article is because there WAS one. I did get a laugh out of the allegation that we should take the sum of the Glock 19 article keep votes and the .22 walther keep votes and make that apply specifically to the Glock 19 article though. I shouldn't have to point out Alyeska, that despite your repeated incivility and personal attacks on the glock 19 article, there is a clear consensus: 14 to 5, in favor of deletion. You are not above wikipedia's policies regarding community consensus, even if you yawn when told to follow our civility policies.

23:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, since the Walther P22 article is split 50:50 down the middle, combining it with the Glock 19 article still wouldn't change the consensus: it would still be heavily in favor of excluding the information as irrelevant.

^{Denny Crane.}

23:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I suggested you take all votes, not just keep and remove. I was commenting that all the keep voters from P22 could easily post in the Glock19 page and suddenly the consensus disappears. Its the same argument being made by largely the same people about the same basic topic. Unless of course you disagree that Cho used both pistols in the same massacre. As to the claims of incivility. I was making factual comments. He was making commentary that had nothing to do with the subject at hand. He was manufacturing proof against me. If you would read a little deeper you will note he accused me of refusing to support non-American related gun incidents. I told him I was more then willing to support non-American incidents, if I knew of any. He didn't even post a single example outside of Port Arthur, which I also said I would support. Game Junkie was making false accusations at me about my bias as well as making commentary that was designed to distract from the subject at hand. And I love some of your links. Since when is red herring a personal insult? If you read up on that, its a logical fallacy. Not my fault that exposing someones logical fallacies might seem insulting, but the truth isn't biased. However, that has nothing to do with this discussion and I wonder why you brought it up. As it stands, I am supporting taking ALL (ok, all valid votes) votes from both P22 and Glock19 into account. The subject between them is identical. You do that and your claimed consensus for the Glock19 disappears. As I previously commented on, this is something that Yaf has also commented on. Alyeska 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And in response, all the "remove" votes from P22 could post in the Glock 19 page, and it would be different. As to Cho using both pistols, that is irrelevant to the Glock 19 and P22 articles (though it may be relevant to the VT shootings article). Again, factual comments do not excuse incivility, on your part, or on the part of others, who themselves were out of line as well (but not repeatedly, as you were). You seem to be missing that the P22 and Glock 19 articles are two seperate, disparate articles. Nothing prevents the information from being on one article, but not the other, other than consensus to do so. Let me reiterate: the two articles are about two different subjects: they fire different chamberings, are made by different companies, are in use by different countries, and are completely different firearms. So why would any consensus be combined between the two? Notice, I'm not arguing the opposite: that the Glock 19 consensus should be applied to the P22 page. That's just as inappropriate.

^{Denny Crane.}

00:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Different articles, exact same subject. The dispute you "resolved" in Glock19 is the exact same dispute in the P22. It is possible to make the same argument across multiple pages. Your splitting hairs right here. All I am asking is you take into account all interested parties, not everyone in the P22 article necessarily considered that the issue would be repeated in the Glock19 thread. Alyeska 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Weapon articles have long had to deal with trivial cataloging of every appearance they've made in fiction; the guideline that's been settled on is that we should only mention incidents where they've become iconic, thus,

) 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Especially see lack of serious media coverage of the gun models. They're being mentioned in passing; with prior massacres where the gun is somehow a part focus of the coverage, you see stories on the guns, people talking about them a lot, etc. All the media coverage here is mentioning the facts of what was used, and leaving it at that. The coverage, the pundits, the politicians, nobody seems to much care what model of gun was used, other than for the historical record. That seems sort of not-notable from the guns' perspective. Georgewilliamherbert 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Put another way, people wanting to learn more about the Virginia Tech shootings may conceivably be interested in what kinds of firearms were used, so it makes sense to link in that direction. However, people wanting to learn more about a particular firearm are unlikely to be asking "what crimes has this weapon been used in?", so it doesn't make sense to link in that direction. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that allowed? I in the past have been punished for doing that to my own page. Also Jefferson Anderson has blanked other of my pages. Can something be done to retrieve the material? Please help? Sincerely --Mattisse 01:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC):

Please someone stop User:Jefferson Anderson from blanking portions of my user page, please. May I have my pages protected until I get a rest. I do not know what is still missing. There is material that I need that I can no longer find. Is there help for this? --Mattisse 01:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Matisse, please stop forum shopping. Users have already removed the speedy deletion tags. Regards, Iamunknown 02:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I don't think it's forum shopping, is it? Mattisse is just worried about what might happen overnight. I don't think protection is necessary, because I hope no admin would speedy these pages (

WP:MFD is the correct venue, although I'm don't expect they'd be deleted). — coelacan

— 02:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you have directly characterised my comment unfavourably in your edit summary, coelacan, I feel the need to explain: I did not intend to

assumption of good faith on my part and not characterise me as something that I am not. Thank you, Iamunknown

02:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't characterized you as anything. If you were biting, it would likely be inadvertent, since as far as I know, you aren't a jerk. It's your choice to be offended if you want to, but I didn't intend it that way. — coelacan — 03:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I was not intentionally forum shopping. I do not know about these various process of deletion. All I know that information was being removed from my user page by Jefferson Anderson. I received no responds from anyone I asked except Thatcher131 who said that it was not happening. I have managed to restore some. of it. Is that called forum shopping, trying to get a response from some one? Please, I would like to do the right thing here, but I have been harassed for many months and I am very tired and at this point I do not know what to do and can't think clearly anymore as I am frightened. Sorry to have irritated you. Sincerely, --Mattisse 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not necessary to raise the issue in so many places. One message right here on WP:ANI would be enough. Now you know. — coelacan — 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I understand now. And I apologize to both of you for getting all indignant. I guess I just saw what appeared to be a major rift between you and Mr Anderson and, while I don't know the background behind it, I wish it were not there. I don't assume that I am alone, and I should probably just mind my own business now. I apologize. --Iamunknown 03:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's cool. I don't think either of us intended to

WP:ABF with the other. — coelacan

— 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please clear this up for me... so if the user retires he is allowed to blank his talk page?--Dacium 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Some user using this IP 74.123.39.201 has attracted warning messages from various users( See User talk:74.123.39.201). All edits are to Islam related articles and cannot always be termed vandalism. In fact in the case of Medina he/she has actually undone vandalism by another editor. However this user is being uncooperative by removing tags and making unwanted, sometimes haphazard edits. He/she has been ignoring warnings. A temporary block on the IP may be necessary to get them to the discussion table. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I reviewed their edit history. Warned repeatedly for vandalism. Removing tags from pages with no explanation whatsoever. Inserting various verses of the Qu'ran into articles. No dialog with anyone whatsoever. Behaviour continued after last warn. I've given them a 24-hour block - Alison ☺ 05:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that the block on this IP was a little hasty and even undeserved. They have only made four edits total. The first edit they made is that of the typical new user/IP who doesn't really understand policy yet, but they were warned with a level two warning for it. It was deserved and the situation was handled appropriately. Their next edit was combined vandalism/spelling fix with an edit summary of only describing a spelling fix, but their edit directly after that deleted the vandalism in their previous edit. So, while they did vandalize the page and tried to hide it, they obviously realized they should delete it. Their fourth edit was to contest the block (though their excuse is, admittedly, rather lame).

They were not warned at all for the second case of vandalism, let alone given a warning level of three/four where it states they can actually be blocked for disruptive edits. They were just blocked for "repeated abuse of editing privileges" yet they haven't technically shown this, nor had they been properly warned for it, meaning, they could have very well not known that they could be blocked for it. I just think the block was hasty and a little mis-directed. I think this is a user who could easily learn the error of their ways (as is evident by them deleting their vandalism) if they are given guidance. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 14:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What follows is not representative of anyone else's thinking; it is only my opinion. It's a 31 hour block. They can potentially find guidance when the block expires. They won't do that, though, as evidenced by the blatant lie in their unblock request. They vandalized at 12:24 and 12:30, and undid one of those at 12:34. They were blocked at 12:39. This block very likely prevented further vandalism, as that vandalize-and-revert pattern is usually not the end of a vandalism cycle, only a test phase. It is possible that they would have stopped after a level-4 warning; many vandals do. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over them getting the message with a 31 hour block. That's just me. We'll see what others think. — coelacan — 14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are not going to bother with the whole levels approach then why bother at all. Really the guy vandalised once. Then a second time, probably saw the warnings and took the second one down. Then you ban him. This is unbeliable level of WP:BITE. 31 hours is far to excessive. I would have chucked something like 1 hour at him just so they learn to knock it off if he had done something again after a level 4.--Dacium 03:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm not so much contesting the block as I am concerned that they were blocked without even receiving a level three or four warning, thus, they didn't necessarily know their actions could potentially cause them to be blocked. Maybe I'm just a softie, but I think they have a right to, at the very least, receive a level three warning first before being blocked so they've at least got the knowledge that they could be blocked. After that, they've really got no excuse for their behavior. I know over at AIV, they often won't block someone until they've at least received a final warning. This person didn't even get a level three. If I were to report them over at AIV, would they still have been blocked? I'm honestly just curious at this point. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 14:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have blocked yet in this particular case. Level-2 and level-3 warnings are complete wastes of time, but a level-4 warning stops some people and is thus a preventative measure. I will point out though that strictly speaking, not a single warning is necessary if the vandalism is egregious and fast. The major concern is "is this ongoing" rather than "does the vandal know they might be blocked?" And to be honest I cannot imagine anyone not knowing that they can be blocked. The kid has surely used forums or chans or blog comment sections and learned that crap like this can result in blocking. Wikipedia is actually pretty generous; 31 hours is a rather short time. In any case, if you're concerned about this block, the best place to bring it up first is User talk:Atlant, rather than here. — coelacan — 15:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. That's really all I was curious about. Sorry if I didn't bring it up on their page first. In the past, when I've brought concerns up on individual talk pages, I've had my concerns brushed off and not had my questions answered. However, I've always gotten detailed and informative responses from here so that's the biggest reason I came here first. Also, I wanted varied responses, of course the admin will defend their block, so I wanted responses from someone not directly involved, which is exactly what I got. Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 15:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actaully in my experience admins do not necessarily defend blocks if you question them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"I guess I'm not so much contesting the block as I am concerned that they were blocked without even receiving a level three or four warning, thus, they didn't necessarily know their actions could potentially cause them to be blocked." And we care why? If they know their vandalisms will get them blocked, and they somehow care, then that's a good thing, but you have no evidence or proof that they would suddenly flip over to making valid edits; I on the other hand have four edits showing that he has never made one. 31 hours is nothing, he can wait a day. Nothing is lost by him. If he truly wanted to be a valid editor, then he will happily sit in the penalty box, instead of thinking, "Wow, they stopped me from editing for adding "parrots like to eat dick" to an article? I'll NEVER add my ultraintelligent, well-referenced additions to this encyclopedia!" Please. --Golbez 15:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your tone here is rather condescending and I don't appreciate it. Please treat me with respect and answer my questions in an appropriate manner as coelacan has done. I am not 10 years old; I deserve to be spoken to like an adult. Technically, they didn't necessarily know that they would get him blocked because he wasn't left with a warning that told him this. You really shouldn't make the assumption that he does know this because there is always a chance that he doesn't. Also, one of those edits removed their previous vandalism. Sure, they may have just vandalized again (and probably would have), but where's the proof that they would? This edit, without an incidence of vandalism after, is technically a valid edit. He also corrected spelling (really he changed from the British to the American spelling), but I won't really bring that one up since it was coupled with an edit of vandalism. --pIrish 16:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my tone, but we really, really need to stop coddling vandals here. No, we don't need to work our way up the test template hierarchy, that usually just wastes the time of admins and the integrity of the encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with giving a clue-bat hit to someone who has made nothing but vandal edits. Please tell me why we should care if he knew he would get blocked. Usually, when I do bad things on a website, I probably expect to eventually be stopped from what I'm doing. Same thing with real life. Common sense. I don't see why we can't expect that from newbies. --Golbez 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yikes man, ever hear of

M^ask?

16:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My main reason for responding to this was to respond to the line, "they didn't necessarily know their actions could potentially cause them to be blocked," and why this matters. You do bad things, you get hit with a stick. And I see that he vandalized after receiving his first warning, so I think your view of the facts may be incorrect. 12:24: vandalized. 12:26: first warning. 12:30: vandalized. 12:34: removed vandalism. 12:40: second warning. But I can see what you mean, he may not have gotten the "you have a message!" until after he vandalized.

Assuming good faith means assuming good faith with their edits; it doesn't mean assuming that someone will stop being a vandal just because they got a warning. It doesn't mean assuming good faith that they are only a vandal because they don't know there are consequences to their actions. There's a vast difference between someone making a good-faith test or copyvio, and someone adding "parrots like to eat dicks lol". That's not good faith, and I won't assume it is. It was their responsibility to figure out that such activity is frowned upon.

I have, however, roped myself into defending the block - personally, I would have probably not blocked after seeing his self-revision, nor after the first edit. Again, my main reason for entering this conversation was to challenge the assertion that vandals would stop vandalizing if they thought they were going to be blocked. (It's issues like these that are causing me to use more warnings as of late, which is a very good thing, but only in situations where I see any good faith at all; where I don't, they go into the corner after multiple hits.) --Golbez 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that the new-message bar didn't come up for the anon in question (see bugzilla:9213)? --ais523 17:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly possible, but if so then the same thing would happen even for level-4 warnings and they're going to get blocked anyway. I'm not sure there's anything for admins to do differently in the meantime. — coelacan — 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Pupster's account is working now, so I guess it is fine again. He dropped me a note that his school's computers are setup to not use javascript properly, so he expects this to be the reason. Anyway, his account is working now. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Pupster21 seems to be having a streak of bad luck with his monobook (User:Pupster21/monobook.js). This is the second time he's tried to add a script and trashed his ability to log in doing so. See WP:VPT. We confirmed last time that it is indeed the same person posting from Pupster210 and he only uses this account when his monobook is fried. Could somebody please revert it? Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

sure, I just blanked it. alphachimp 16:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks! Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha Ha Ha. You hopefully won't get another of these, for I got my script now without frying my monobook! Thanks! --Pupster21 Talk To Me 23:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be using the sandbox as a platform to soapbox, and is clearly violating

16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• It would be nice if someone else could deal with this--VectorPotentialTalk 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't get escalated, but here's the situation. A Featured Article was submitted to FAR. Various comments were made, and the issues were resolved. Then, 2 weeks later, unbelievably, User:Marskell advances the article from FAR to FARC. I contested the unnecessarily hasty move, and then moved it back to FAR. He then rolled back my edit without any explanation or reply, abusing the rollback button. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 16:56Z

"Rollback abuse"? What is that? And what do you mean "escalated"? Are you threatening to wheel war?

WP:FAR, like he has done for months, with little or no thanks. The discussion of Great Lakes Storm of 1913 has been going on for over two weeks, and some points would appear to still need to be addressed, so the decision needs to be made whether to leave the review open, or close the review speedily, or move it to the next stage of review, which is FARC. Rather than "escalating" this storm in a teacup by bringing it here, why not discuss with Marskell at User talk:Marskell if you have a problem with what he has done, or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review if you think there is a problem with the process, or at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Great Lakes Storm of 1913 if you disagree with his substantive comments on the article? -- ALoan (Talk)

17:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Way to assume good faith there... "Rollback abuse" is a very common term, meaning that someone is using the rollback button for nonvandalism, without explanation. As for "escalated", I meant that I didn't want anyone to waste too much time on this; why did you assume I meant that I was going to wheel war??? First, Marskell doesn't own WP:FAR, so he can't just use rollback as he pleases. Second, the FAR discussion has not "been going on for over 2 weeks", it lasted a day or two, and has sat unedited for 2 weeks. I've already discussed it at the FAR page. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 17:31Z

Perhaps we could all just

assume the assumption of good faith

, eh? I have no idea what "escalated" means in this context. You complain about a rolling back and say that the situation may be escalated, but leave us to guess how. Edit/reversion/wheel war? Blocking? Opening an arbitration case?

Anyway, no-one has died - perhaps rolling you back without explanation was poor form; on the other hand, perhaps pressing the big red button marked "ANI" was too. I have suggested plenty of more appropriate venues to discuss the substantive issues above. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I wrote

WP:AAGF, I know how to do it :P — BRIAN0918

• 2007-04-26 22:07Z

You asked to talk, so come back and talk. I've apologized on the review—you're right, I shouldn't have used rollback. I was planning to comment immediately and then we tripped over each other commenting on the page. Marskell 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, what were you coming here to ask for, Brian? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A third opinion, someone to watch

WP:FAR in case it does escalate for some reason (such as if he rolled back again without explanation). — BRIAN0918

• 2007-04-26 17:34Z

Plenty of people are watching. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Brian, I did explain. Within fifteen minutes. You brought it here within five. I mean c'mon. I'm sitting here talking to you. Marskell 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This user keeps creating unnecessary articles for the

18:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• You're replacing the prod tags. This is bad (tm). Use AfD. I already talked to the editor about his nasty message on his own talk page, but there's nothing really wrong with anything else he's done so far. JuJube 20:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Max Thayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continually uploaded the image Image:Omar3.jpg after it has been deleted, and has done so under the same faulty rationale. The user has been warned in the past to stop uploading images with bogus fair use claims. Could someone please handle this? Part Deux 19:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Done--Wizardman 19:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Had quite a bit of vandalism, including pagemove vandalism, at the

19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't either, as a non-admin, as the user vandalized the redirect. I'll put a db tag on it, but it's the best I can do right now. Admin help asked for, and, seeing this is clearly a return user, someone please block the vandal. Part Deux 19:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try to fix this after I stop laughing. — coelacan — 19:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed. --WinHunter ^(talk) 19:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page for two days. Shadow1 (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how pagemoves are only possible for users with an autoconfirmed flag, how does sprotection stop this from happening again?--VectorPotential^Talk 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've applied move=sysop protection as well. — coelacan — 19:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You two are fast. I sent the vandals to their rooms with no dinner. — coelacan — 19:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as long as you weren't giggling while you did so. Ruins the "evil admin" reputation. ;) 65.185.203.89 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This one is scary, as it is signed MS 13--a major crime gang. I don't know how Wikipedia wants to handle this sort of thing; a "please don't vandalize" reply seems insufficient, so I'm bringing it here. [[69]]

--67.101.110.49 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I plonked a {{

bv}} tag on their page. We don't get many criminal gangs down here on the farm, so I'm not particularly scared ;) --kingboyk

23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You may not see gangs on the farm, but they really do exist in Los Angeles, where this radio host is, and they murder people.

Academia Semillas del Pueblo), and MS-13 is a gang run by LA-based Central Americans, I think that post has to be taken as a serious threat. 67.101.110.49

23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You can see the IP, it's 24.4.218.226, and if you want to call the police and let them know about it, you can. ╶╴coelacan╶╴ 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, sorry, I thought it was whether or not to tag their talk page that was the issue. In that case, I'd recommend contacting the foundation. --kingboyk 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC) No need, you have the IP address. You can contact the radio station perhaps? --kingboyk 00:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

$ whois 24.4.218.226
Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. EASTERNSHORE-1 (NET-24-0-0-0-1)
                                  24.0.0.0 - 24.15.255.255
Comcast Cable Communications BAYAREA-9 (NET-24-4-0-0-1)
                                  24.4.0.0 - 24.5.255.255

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-04-25 19:10

...if it helps. --kingboyk 00:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Its almost certainly somebody playing at being a Mara, its one thing to make a claim and another to actually be a member of that gang and it doesnt sound likely that a real mara would do such simple vandalsim. But they certainly are very real. I would strongly advise you to ignore this,

SqueakBox

00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. Yes, it is probable that the vandal is just another immature blowhard, like 99.9% of Wikipedia vandals. But because McIntyre is someone who could conceivably be a target (one of the Wikipedia articles mentions that he's received threats related to that "Academia..." school controversy), I can't shake the possibility that this post might be of interest to some law enforcement agency or another, though I'm not sure which one. 67.101.110.49 01:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandals are vandals. Sometimes people think the anonymity thing takes them off scott free. I can tell you with a certain degree of certainty that this ip is probably from Everret, Massachusetts and just some kid playing around think he's hot stuff. I wouldn't be too concerned. There have been far worse cases on here where one gentlement threatened the life of another that he actually knew personally. Yanksox 02:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The IP is Berkely, California. ··coelacan 03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested this page be semi-protected and this user blocked because of consistent vandalism and threats to continue to revert this page to an unnacceptable state. I was told that apparently this is a content dispute but I hardly see renaming the link for basketball to "African Roundball", "el sporto de los negroes", and insinuating that these hosts perform felation on eachother as a legitimate content dispute. Please semi-protect this page and block this user so that this article can be fully cleaned-up. Thank you. --Angrymansr 01:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, but next time you'll get faster results at

WP:AIV. ^☈coelacan

01:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That page was where I filed my original complaint, and was sent here to explain. Thanks--Angrymansr 01:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wild. It was so obvious. Sorry about that. ^☈coelacan 02:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin; this article is a vandal magnet. I suspect User:JoeMcCool06 is producing sockpuppets and the IP vandalism is probably due to a dynamic IP so I was at a lost to try to combat this problem by myself.--Jorfer 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Next time you see something like this,

WP:RFPP is what you want. ··coelacan

03:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Some sock puppet accusers are more equal than others

If I were to do this on someone else's talk page, I'd be banned. This editor? Above the wiki law judging from his/her posting history [70]. I'm not the first to get this sort of harassment on my talk pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piperdown (talk • contribs)

Just a simple question I asked, based on your editing history. Your retort was as I expected.--MONGO 06:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That simple question is not generally tolerated from those of us who aren't playing ball with the corruption here. I'd be banned for it, you won't be. Checkuser me, and allow me the same leeway to request checkusers on editors who I know are sockpuppets without me being banned for doing so. Ain't gonna happen.Piperdown 06:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What corruption is that?--MONGO 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This question looks to me like it's a badly worded question, buit one which needs to be asked (in a nicer way). The wording What's your real account (the bold there I put in for emphissis) looks to me like an

uncivil way to ask the question. Od Mishehu

07:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the question, don't answer it. If you don't want questions like that, you should really attempt to be more like a new user, it isn't hard to do so. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 11:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow... the words being uttered here quite surprise me.... Apparently, it has become wrong for new wikipedians to know what they're doing. Some people actually DO READ all the rules and guidelines. Thats what they're there for. So that we don't get too many inexperienced people needing constant. A person who complied with guidelines and made himself familiar with policies before editing is now a sock puppet accusent? MONGO, you really shouldn't bang up people's edit history just to say they're a sock puppet. Has he been disruptive? Has he shown any signs of being disruptive? Try to be a bit more civil, and don't go up to random user accusing them of sock puppetry with no valid proof. Perhaps if you had asked the question in a more polite manner, such as... "Your knowledge of wikipedia, seems to be quite profound, as based on your first edit here. Any reason why?". Instead of instigating someone and spiting them for the response that you deem as inappropriate simply based on the phrasing of the question you asked them in the first place, remain civil, and don't BITE. Floria L 23:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPADE--MONGO

07:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Floria, I think Piperdown's remark above concerning "the corruption here" is indeed disruptive, as is this AN/I. MONGO was not WP:BITE, and neither was my comment here [71], one month ago and unrelated to MONGO's concerns. --Mantanmoreland 14:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

10:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Doing any other Bobblewik-like things? - David Gerard 10:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT, no. Just wikilinking every year in sight, including references, image captions etc. Duja► 11:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just rollback and warn whenever necessary. Sole year linking had previously been discussed (see various

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) archives), and while there isn't consensus to remove on sight, it became agreed they should only be relevant in the context (e.g. 2004 in sports). This is highly inconsistent with that, and is likely done by an unauthorized bot. Michaelas¹⁰

11:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rolled back and warned in mildest terms I managed to come upon. Huh, most of his previous activity was changing British spellings to American... Duja► 14:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Bobblewik was delinking years (and being rolled back). Thincat 13:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

He's still doing it. JuJube 20:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

He is still delinking years, but not enmasse. And why shouldn't he delink years if there is no context?

David D. (Talk)

20:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

He's not delinking years, he is linking them. JuJube 23:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

He/she is now reverting all the edits that Duja made. Strange. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 03:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rolled back and warned in strongest possible terms. I'm sorry that it included a bit of collateral damage, but it's difficult to separate trees from the forest. Let someone please take an eye on him, as I won't be around during the next 5 days. Duja► 07:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tossed a 24 hours block, and will put an eye on him afterwards. It's getting ridiculous. Michaelas¹⁰ 09:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The user

09:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted his third 'R'. Anchoress 09:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Clear nonsense/vanalism with

Doc

^g 09:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Clarification Doc - Rehnn83 ^Talk 11:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's been quite the flood of new accounts posting to this DRV in the last few hours. Something to keep an eye on. WarpstarRider 10:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. They've been clearly identified and I seriously doubt the closing admin will pay them any attention. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has a minute, I'd like for someone else to take a look at the Novosoft Handy Backup page. An anonymous user showed up today and changed the address from handybackup.com to handybackup.net. These are two different companies. As far as I've been able to tell, the company that uses handybackup.com was the original company, and the company that uses handybackup.net is a company that pirated the original software and design and is selling it as its own. The anon's first edit was to blank the talk page...which had also mentioned the difference between the two companies. I know I could still change the address back again without violating 3rr, but I'd like someone else to look into it in case the information I've found about these companies is incorrect. --OnoremDil 11:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I guess that's one way to take care of it. Thanks. --OnoremDil 11:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

After I warned 202.169.207.211 (talk · contribs) that they were close to violating 3RR in Talk:The Edge (radio station), ([72] [73]), I noticed that Asasinz (talk · contribs) reverted my edit ([74]). And then I received a warning from Bhowden (talk · contribs) on my talk page ([75]).

It's more than odd that three users were working to preserve a nonsense edit and appears to be a case of a user sockpuppeting to get around 3RR. For further evidence:

• [76] by Bhowden (talk · contribs)
• [77] by Asasinz (talk · contribs)
• [78] by 202.169.220.108 (talk · contribs) (same IP range, and edit summary pretty much in the same language as this edit.)

At the very least, the user needs to stop the sockpuppetry. Ytny (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree with me if I say that I believe that

13:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed the AFD debates, as it was clear that this account's only purpose was to cause disruption. Revert me if anyone thinks I'm wrong. I'll block the account in a minute; a review would be much appreciated. (It hasn't edited in a while, though.) Sean William 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support block- tendentious editing at best, trolling at worse. But why do we have an article about Wookieepedia? WjBscribe 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its crazy harsh. Some someone AFD's two articles, does a few minor edits, result is instant ban? Why not just warn him for disruptive AFD'ing if you think they are obvious keeps. If you actually think this is werth a ban why are you not checkuser to find the other accounts and boot them aswell - i think because the ban wouldn't stick at all because its almost baseless. Having said that you probably did the right thing, unless he contests. --Dacium 15:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support ban, this stuff happens all the time. Yawn. 75.62.7.22 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

He looks like a sockpuppet of a nice chap I met last week. Support block. –

15:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This person was given a final warning before. Today he vandalized the page for Kenny McCormick, as you can see here. Tweeks Coffee 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a vandal only account.

WP:AIAV is a good place to get quick action on something like this. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk

· 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm archiving this - there's no constructive edits being made here now. -- Nick ^t 17:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is the wrong place to post this, my apologies. The above user has been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at least twice now for removing content relating to the comparatively-well documented Christian conversion of Bob Dylan. He has used such statements as "Christians consider it a triumph to convert a Jew to Christ" in his edit summary to his 04:02 25 April 2007 edit to

17:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll be wanting that Community Noticeboard thingy - WP:CN I think. -- Nick ^t 17:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wizofdahood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - see own user page edit. Andy Mabbett 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I forwarded this to

WP:AIV, which has a backlog 20 names long now. YechielMan

18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. User

Doc

^g 18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[82] [83] [84].

15:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try that. But please guys keep calm and don't escalate the issue further. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This guy seems rightly pissed off at (what was) the contents of the article, which looked like a concerted smear campaign against the company, based on an anonymous attack site and original research. Though he is talking about lawyers, there are other editors whose edits are of concern. 76.109.17.236 (talk · contribs) and WizardOfWor (talk · contribs) seem to be making some troubling edits, as well as most of the warnings. It seems Jeanclauduc is not the only one with a conflict of interest. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 16:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While waiting for Jean Claude's response to my message, i share teh same opinion w/ zzuuzz. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if Jeanclauduc backs down and explains himself. The article is protected in a version that he should be happy with. --

Ronz

17:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am much more concerned about the edits of WizardOfWor (talk · contribs) and 76.109.17.236 (talk · contribs) than those of Jean. I am not sure how much you are aware of the implication of the information posted at the article on wikipedia. But, i'll wait and see. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I thought it was priority to get help with Jeanclauduc's legal threats and poor English. Sorry if my focus on him was inappropriate. --

Ronz

18:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Hoping to hear from his concerns first as he's the claiming party. We'll deal w/ the rest later on. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help on this, Fayssal. It's a little hard to get to the root of this when both sides apparently have an agenda and I can't make heads or tails out of some of the statements. One other question: can you find a corresponding article on fr.wikipedia.org? I'm afraid that my high school French from 20 years ago did not get me very far. Kuru ^talk 01:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any article on MDS International in the French Wikipedia. EdJohnston 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing except the Tunisian political party Mouvement des Démocrates Socialistes. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Update

I received a message from User:Jeanclauduc but i needed some more clarifications. So probably i'll get answers this afternoon. I also contacted admin BD2412 who is an intellectual property lawyer to have his opinion. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

72.19.4.235 (talk · contribs · block log) claims to be Kirk Kirkpatrick, CEO MDS America [85]. --

20:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

All our attempted diplomacy, including the asisstance of French-speaking admin

MDS International should go take place in a courtroom somewhere, and not vex us any further here at Wikipedia. If the legal problems are ever solved, I'd favor recreating both articles. If you disagree, please join the discussion at Talk:MDS International. See also a report on MDS International at the conflict of interest noticeboard. EdJohnston

23:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

MDS International has been nominated for deletion here. On the theory that getting rid of the article eliminates the possibility of defaming this company, which is not highly notable in any case, and this may damp out the edit war between the COI partisans of MDS America and MDS International. EdJohnston

01:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rbj has been chronically incivil and insulting toward anyone who disagrees with him at Talk:Intelligent design. This is after multiple recent warnings there and at his talk page and a block 1 month ago for personal attacks there. People at Talk ID are becoming exasperated and Rbj just doesn't seem to get it, so would some admins here take a look at his history and recent comments there and his talk page and take whatever action is warranted and that will get him to participate positively. Odd nature 21:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a careful look at the relevant edit history. The problem is that Rbj is strongly opinionated but also highly intelligent and committed to NPOV. He tends to lash out too strongly against those who disagree with him. The recent edit does not merit a block because, as Rbj defended himself, he attacked the opinion as "made-up" rather than attacking the person as a "liar", which he has done in the past. I'm not going to take action, but the most that could be done is a warning against personal attacks, including labeling opinions as POV, with a block to follow if the warning goes unheeded. YechielMan 02:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether he's actually committed to NPOV is not the issue (and neither is it a given), his civility is. He's been warned many times already and blocked once as well and is still is at it. Something more needs to be done please. Odd nature 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And he doesn't let up. Looks like his current target is User:Orangemarlin. But, since I won't touch him, and other admins seem uncertain, perhaps you should elaborate clearly on what it is you think needs to happen. — coelacan — 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a topic ban is in order here. Failing that, a 48 block seems justified since the 24 hour one didn't make an impression. Odd nature 16:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

neither do you let up. do the rules not apply to you, 151? r b-j 22:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is perennial. Doesn't seem to be related to the ID page, but this recent alteration of another's user page was pretty incivil. Over on Talk:ID, calling other editors' work "dog-shit" and brandishing the "you guys think your own shit don't stink" line again. And waving around the threat of meatpuppetry again. And calling another editors' arguments "bullshit". I didn't dig any further than that. No, he's not pleasant to work with. I've had too many disagreements with him in the past to step in, myself. I'm would not be able to act as a disinterested party. But I agree you shouldn't have to put up with this... — coelacan — 02:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, you again are not being honest. here is what i said: "you don't let reason and self-examination prevail so people like Gnixon or Morphh have to go get more editors from the outside to help push back this blatent POV editing" and then 151 (now know as Odd Nature) says: "so it doesn't matter how many meat puppets people like Gnixon or Morphh recruit from the outside" (which isn't even true, all Gnixon did is put it on a comment noticeboard for the Science and Religion projects which is getting a 3rd opinion) and now you falsely accuse me of soliciting or threatening meatpuppetry. is being untruthful of someone else considered by you to be civil? BTW, Coelacan has attacked me before (when he was an admin wannabe) and it was reversed by Jimbo. Coelacan does not have his nose clean. r b-j 22:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

He's continuing to be incivil and attack others: [86][87][88] Would someone please make an effort here to get him to stop. Odd nature 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

boo-hoo-hoo, 151 would like to inject his POV into an article about a contentious topic without opposition. 151 would like to claim any opinion of his as fact and have that canonized into a Wikipedia article and wants no one to get in the way. he's not the only one. if he were, there wouldn't be much of a problem. i am frustrated with repeated misrepresentations of me, my positions, Wikipedia policy, and the facts, and have these guys hide being

WP:CIVIL. they are not civil and to come here and call the kettle black is something akin to hypocrisy. r b-j

22:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

r-b-j, I strongly encourage you to take a more civil tone. What's it hurt? Why not try to work civilly with people? I asked Jimbo for a clarification myself at the time, and he very clearly stated that you aren't under any form of special protection. Just ease off the cursing, and quit accusing everyone that disagrees with you of every form of wrongdoing in the book. There is absolutely no need for this to end badly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

i never said, nor implied that i was ever under any special protection. i am saying that Coelacan is wrong regarding his previous experience with me. and that Jimbo has clearly repudiated him (do you need me to find the link?). what Coelacan did then is what he did here right now, he attributed some other person's action to me. at that time he accused me of leveling a legal threat against Wikipedia (and got me blocked indefinitely when i did nothing of the sort) and Jimbo said no way. that's all i said and meant to say. i do not invoke Jimbo as if he is my personal protector or anything, but regarding this thing with Coelacan, regarding User:Karmafist, and regarding my right to disappear (after Karma was banned, i decided to come back), Jimbo has acted completely correctly as i could see it and in all three cases, against either mistaken or abusive admins. r b-j 22:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be a great idea for you to provide some diffs if you are going to drop the J-bomb on me. Jimbo said only that my interpretation of

WP:NLT

was faulty. That's it, a disagreement over the reading of policy, and nothing more. I don't know what you think you can milk from it. And the fact that I have not blocked you, despite my view that you have engaged in personal attacks again, means that I am acting well within the bounds of policy regarding an editor I've had past disputes with. Don't act like I'm not even allowed to talk about your behavior.

You, here, are not saying that you personally will go recruit meatpuppets, but you do appear to be saying that meatpuppetry will be necessary and that Gnixon or Morphh will have to do it, as a legitimate recourse. Encouraging other editors to use meatpuppets is not acceptable either. Vandalizing other another editor's user page when you are in a disagreement with them is well beyond incivil. And constantly cursing at other people when an article's talk page should be a diplomatic zone does nothing to resolve disputes, but it does drive other editors away. Can you recognize that your behaviour in these areas could be improved to your and everyone's benefit? ··coelacan 01:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

no, what Gnixon and/or Morphh was doing was

broadening the opinion pool which started some movement in the direction of reform. you repeatedly mischaracterize it. that's a falsehood. you first level another falsehood about me, and then you do it about Gnixon and Morphh. stop doing it. misrepresenting people is uncivil. none of us were meatpuppeting nor advocating it. those are your words and you have no right associating them with any of us. it's like picking a fight. it is picking a fight and to do that while calling the kettle black is hypocritical. r b-j

05:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rbj, I've warned you repeatedly on your talk page to please calm down. If you persist at this, you're almost certainly going to get blocked for persistant and constant violation of

05:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing...

Sgthenno (talk · contribs), 63336AQA (talk · contribs), and 217.205.250.160. Is it just me or is something really weird going on in here...? --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Bunch of school kids being stupid by the look of it.--Dacium 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the user's only contributions to date have been editing that page for spamvertising purposes, with nothing else to the project, it's pretty blatant and inappropriate for the User namespace. I've speedied that page per CSD G11. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a general response to comments I have seen this past week by several editors; I don't think it's necessary to provide diffs, and I don't want to single any one editor out from the rest.

I have noticed lately that more and more people speak as if starting a discussion about a user on this page is some sort of disciplinary action in itself, even if no block or other admin action is ever taken. I disagree. Posting to AN/I is the right thing to do if you feel a wider discussion of an incident is warranted and the potential need for admin tools is not so remote that discussion here is pointless. It's especially useful if direct communication with an editor has broken down. Being discussed here does not reflect poorly on an editor, and if their conduct has been appropriate it is common to see others come to their defense.

In the end, admin action is warranted only in a minority of the situations discussed on this page, but the discussion is helpful in most of them. The editor who is being discussed can learn whether their actions have consensus, and the person posting a complaint can find out if nobody else agrees with them. CMummert · talk 17:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Although it helps to realise that most of the complaints about people here are groundless, and to try to distinguish one's complaint in a manner that it will be taken seriously - this page is huge as is, and it's easy to get lost in the noise - David Gerard 17:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

True, it is not a punishment yet ... but that is an interesting idea. "As punishment for your misdeeds, you must read

WP:AN/I. Two archives' worth should do it." I think it would fit somewhere between an administrative warning and outright ban. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see many discussions on this page that should be handled through our established dispute resolution processes. I think it would be better if we encouraged editors to avoid notices here about anything except actionable disruption (giving examples), and to seek to resolve their differences without running to the admins. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather people come here to ask for help when it's a simple issue, than for people to avoid coming when it's a complicated issue. Let's not discourage people from posting here: there's enough manpower to deal with everything. YechielMan 18:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for saying that, YechielMan. Better for us to hear it than not. Encourage more use of the {{resolved}} tag to let other admins know when something's wrapped up, and the volume won't seem like as big a deal. ··coelacan 21:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. Natalie 03:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• 88.239.85.185 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

User has made a legal threat and hence violated Wikipedia:No legal threats. Admin intervention is requested. -- Cat ^chi? 17:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked a half hour before you made this notice. Maybe 31 hours is a bit short, but it is an IP. --Golbez 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's just silly vandalism. Cat, use

Doc

^g 18:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, I was concerned of a Wikipedia:No legal threats violation and wanted a second opinion which I got. Thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 18:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• An anonymous user is making posts to the talk pages of Dragon Ball Z and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga saying that he'll delete all anime and manga articles in three days unless his demands are met. Looks like slightly-more-ballsy-than-usual trolling, but it's worth keeping an eye on. JuJube 18:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the trolling on Dragon Ball Z, but left it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga since some editors had already commented there. I've warned the IP about trolling as well.--Isotope23 19:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Now he's taken it upon his own authority to revoke User:GunnarRene's Barnstar because he has a mean stupid doo doo head. Funny is funny, but disruptive is disruptive. JuJube 19:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked for ten days. IrishGuy ^talk 19:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user at IP address 206.219.74.132 has been vandalizing pages for several months but has yet to be blocked. I think it might be time. C1k3 19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

BiH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continually damaging the work of others by removing reliable source, ignoring warning and leaving strange summary of editing. It seems that user edits articles based on his subjective opinions and not reliable source. Could someone please handle this? Graciella 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if this has been reported or not, but over at John Robinson, there seems to be a rather wild edit-war that's been continuing off-and-on for at least a couple months. Briefly put, it seems that certain users are trying to get a Wikipedia editor (User:Hephaestos) added to the disambig page, along with his full name and photo. To me, this seems incredibly counter to Wikipedia policies. The users so far that I've noticed on the history page who are reverting to the link-and-picture version are: 165.155.200.144 (twice), Charles Montgomery (twice), and Brent Harding. For an example diff, see here --Action Jackson IV 21:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the IP is Mike Garcia avoiding his block. This edit illustrates that fact. IrishGuy ^talk 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the account Devoshane77 ^{Talk, Contribs} is being used purely for vandalism. I first spotted the problem when editing Seth MacFarlane. I went to his talk page to add {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} and noticed a comment about his edits on Jar Jar Binks that appeared to be vandalism. I reviewed his other contributions (reverting where appropiate) and they all appeared to be vandalism. I have got up to the stage where he has recieved 4 warnings on his talk page. He has also vandalised my talk page which I have reverted. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please make a report at

WP:AIV for this kind of thing in the future. ··coelacan

21:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do - and thanks for the feedback on my talk page -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 21:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The above user removed a good image from Celestia that had the star with the disturbing edit summery of "No Celestia!". - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I over-reacted, but there have been a large number of cases of editors posting Celestia renderings in place of less pretty, but scientifically valid, images (in this case, a star chart). Celestia is a good plotting utility, but nothing else. That said, Patricknoddy's reaction seems somewhat extreme to me. I am confused. I do not understand why removing inaccuracy is a bad thing. Michaelbusch 21:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't inaccurate. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 21:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the point of this thread. –

Steel

21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is the Michaelbusch removed a really good photo of Wolf 359 from the article under the basis that it was from a "inaccurate" program. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And what do you expect admins to do? Try the talk page of the article in question. - auburnpilot talk 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Side note: let's not forget the

WP:3RR. - auburnpilot talk

21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Patricknoddy has reverted four times in short order, and as the content he was reverting was clearly not vandalism I have blocked him for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Michaelbusch has reverted only three times, so is not blocked. Michaelbusch's conduct is little better than Patricknoddy's; his edit warring over this trivial matter, and the silly "No Celestia!" edit summary, does not paint him in a favourable light. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't provide any educational value. The star chart provides the star's position in the sky. The celestia image... looks pretty? There's nothing to indicate that it's accurate besides your word, and the star texture is simply a generic one applied to many stars by the program. There is also nothing indicating what the background stars are or what direction the viewport is pointing towards, which would be the only educational value in it. In any case, it's a content dispute, and should be taken to

WP:DR, not here. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk

) 21:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems Patricknoddy has been blocked for 3RR. This has been a productive thread after all. –

Steel

21:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned. There was something for admins to do...good block by Finlay McWalter. - auburnpilot talk 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re. "I am confused". There's nothing wrong with removing inaccuracy, but unlike reverting vandalism, a degree of courtesy doesn't hurt. The summary "No Celestia!" isn't meaningful unless there was a published policy of same (to which you could then link.) I happen to agree in this case with the removal, and in general you seem to be doing an amazing job at cleaning stuff out (your rate of contribs is startling, are you a bot? ;-), but sometimes you may be overhasty (eg your Gliese 876 d edit removed something that seems neither redundant nor incorrect. Did you fact check first?). If you'd expanded your explanation of why you pulled the Celestia image, the revert war with Patricknoddy might have been avoided. (Or not, some people are like that.) AJWM 06:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There was an earlier discussion about DDRG's edits to this article, but I'm not sure where it is. In any case, the end result of talk page discussion was that DDRG would find more sources to support his changes, as there were concerns about reliability. No new sources were ever forthcoming, but he has begun reverting back to his version again, claiming false consensus, or simply undoing revisions. He's also gaming 3RR to boot. MSJapan 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

While he has just violated 3RR, I still feel that this situation requires outside intervention in order to effect any sort of long-term solution. MSJapan 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Checking the time stamps, you seem to have violated 3RR [89] --JJay 03:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute at the entry on Richard Gere. The question is whether to include false accusations about Mr Gere's sexual behaviour. Those favouring inclusion argue that the false rumour has achieved the status of "urban legend" and is therefore notable. Those opposing inclusion argue that false accusations violate WP:BLP, that the material is not notable in relation to Gere (who has never made mention of the accusations), that including the material is insensitive, and that the material is non-encyclopaedic. Editors who wish to include this material cannot see how this material is insensitive or violates BLP. Intervention from administrators may be necessary to prevent further BLP violations. FNMF 22:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is a rather more suitable venue than this for discussing WP:BLP matters. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Er,do we also have to take into consideration the gerbil's views and the effect including this may have on their standing in the gerbil society? ;) Lemon martini 09:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has used profanity towards me after warning this user that repetitive vandalism of WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 is not appreciated, and could lead to being blocked. His response was "Fuck U A$$HOLE". This will remain on my talk page for a few days before I remove it. Socby19 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Socby19

Warned, report here or

WP:AIV if they continue. —dgies^t_c

23:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)