Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive271

 Done Gnangarra 15:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC) My userpages have been under a lot of vandalism lately (I mentioned this on this board a few days ago), as seen by this page I made. The edits are all coming from people I know, as all of the IP addresses trace back to Coventry, UK. Some edits are pretty upsetting, see [1] and [2]. I would be very greatful if an adminstrator could protect the pages listed below for 2 months. I would also be greatful if these IP addresses (which are located here) were blocked from editing Wikipedia.

The pages I want semi-protected for two months are:

• User:Davnel03/Remember
• User:Davnel03 - extend protection, if this is possible.
• User:Davnel03/Vandals
• User:Davnel03/Layouts

I would be greatful if a admin could do this. Many thanks. Davnel03 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:Gnangarra protected them all. I deleted offensive revisions from the "Remember" page.-Wafulz 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I have thanks for reporting the status here Wafulz Gnangarra 15:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia,

Cyber-bullying is the key reason why many people choose not to interact on the internet. As an online community, we are not going to be successful unless we coral cyber-stalkers and bullies. Unfortunately, one user has successfully targeted me. This started when I entered Wikipedia to edit an article for an Iranian television station.

I added a list of the station's shows, but

. When I tried to correct this vandalism he had me banned on technicality for 3RR. Fortunately, the Press TV article has since been locked and is safe from his harm. I have also been unblocked.

Having found a target, he proceeded to unleash his wrath. Apparently by viewing my edit history, he discovered and targeted my article on

.

On a frenzy of harassment. he ignores my request to be left alone, and has now attempted to have me permanently banned. [10] [11]. His supporting evidence is the harassment described above, and his "ally" is the user Zntrip, with whom he had previously tried to ban the Mark Levine article. Note that even Zntrip has since abandoned him. [12]In his request, he also falsely claims I insisted he was an Israeli agent.

All of this started because I wanted to add to an article for an Iranian television station. I have now had to waste days dealing with this cyber-bully, and it has caused me great stress to be targeted in this way. If this were the real world, I could easily get a restraining order. Unfortunately these sorts of people rule some parts of cyberspace. I think as a matter of policy Wikipedia needs to find a way to control this behavior. Wikipedia should be a place where parties share information by editing articles which interest them, not a playground for the mentally ill or anti-social. It is alarming to think someone like Perspicacite could have access to people's IP addresses and personal e-mail addresses (which I certainly will not reveal to wikipedia until I am more comfortable.) Articles related to Iran have just as much a right to exist as any other article, and I should not be targeted and harassed for editing one. I'm writing to see what protection Wikipedia provides against such behavior.

--Vitalmove 16:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Czimborbryan (talk · contribs), referenced above [13], has been tearing through his contributions adding the exact same lengthy defense of his site to all of them, occasionally deleting other comments disagreeing with him. Also, he's repeatedly tried to remove the argument he badly lost from the Village Pump. Could somebody take a stronger line with him, since Haemo's post didn't work? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

About two days ago a new (and seemingly SPA) editor Outlookeditor (

) were created and immediately started reverting the article to Outlookeditor's version.
Can some admin block these obvious sock accounts and also semi-protect the article ? Abecedare 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Obvious socks - both sock accounts blocked indefinitely, and the master account blocked for 48 hours as they had been warned about abusing multiple accounts and edit-warring previously. Hopefully that will get the message across, so I'm not going to semi-protect the page right now. If any more suspicious new accounts or IP's pop up, then semi-protection would be in order. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Abecedare 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that

03:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry bout that, I was sick and just the blatant ignorance of some of the users trying to get rid of the Loserz comic just doesn't make sense. Ive seen comics with lesser degree still up and running.Ripster40 23:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

While looking for any more incidences of the above, I came across a somewhat complete mirror of wikipedia that is calling getting its updates live from here (not using a dump). I tested this by making an edit to my talk page and then confirming that it had appeared on my copy talk page. The search function is the only thing I have found that actually comes back to wikipedia, all other links are to within their main site.

The page is here: http://hg.seoparts.com/dir/en.2ewikipedia.2eorg/wiki/Main_Page

Anyone know where the list of mirrors can be found? As I remember they are encouraged to use the dumps, and not just call it from here for every query. Perhaps the devs can block access.

Actually, I just checked again, its not completely updated with each new query, the main page is still on yesterdays version. However my talk page was called from the current version, edited a few seconds earlier. Perhaps it caches for a limited amount of time to stop repeatedly calling the same page? Viridae^Talk 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yargh I just tried to blank an article and ended up blanking our version. Viridae^Talk 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that is bad. Looks contactable. Prodego ^talk 03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  Registrant Contact:
  Personal
  Yasuda Mitsuru ([email protected])
  +90.90813772
  Fax: +90.90813772
  Toyuhira-ku Hiragishi 4
  none
  Sapporo-City, Hokkaido 062-0934
  JP

I found Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Viridae^Talk 03:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is better to just send an email yourself though. Prodego ^talk 04:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Will get around to that this evening, at uni at the moment, really need to get on with work. Viridae^Talk 04:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you go to http://hg.seoparts.com/dir/en.2ewikipedia.2eorg/wiki/special:mytalk, it tells the IP of the server as 219.117.216.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). When I try to submit an edit, it goes back to Wikipedia ... but just in case someone finds a way around that, the IP should probably be blocked. --B 05:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It works as an open proxy. You can surf any site using that. That is really bad and the ip should be flagged as an open proxy.

MartinDK

12:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hot-linked mirrors are usually blocked from the server configuration. Poke a dev in #wikimedia-tech.
  cool stuff
  ) 22:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

my comments where recently removed here by an editor who objected to the way in which i used subscript. This has occured before on this very same discusion page and he kept on removing comments here and in edits before that, it was an all out edit war. i will revert them back but he should be punished or warned for this. the user is

06:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, other users are allowed to edit your comments for readability. I don't see why you need to enclose your comments in <small> tags, and it definitely doesn't follow

our talk page guidelines. It's hard to read, and makes it difficult to follow the discussion. --Haemo

06:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

he didnt edit them for readability, that would be fine. he completey erased them from the page. what would you say is wrong with the way in which i formatted them? how could i reformat them for better readability. i like to use small so i can directly answer longer statements. its all over talk pages. It says '''Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>"). In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption.''' on the link you gave me, isnt that what i was doing?

¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs}

07:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like seeing comments chopped up as it can make it appear ambiguous who added which comments. I feel a list of rebuttal points is more appropriate, but these are merely my personal preferences. In any event, and much more importantly, removing another's comments from a talk page requires a damn good reason, and "unreadable" is grossly insufficient. Removing good faith comments from a talk page flies in the face of the very concept of Wikipedia as a collaborative project. If said editor can't read your comments, he's free to read the diff, or adjust the format. Someguy1221 07:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

user:ILike2BeAnonymous is repeatedly deleting user:cholga's comments from the talk page despite comments from several editors, myself included, that this is against wiki policy. Yes cholga used small tags and shouldn't have, but this is more about an ongoing edit war than the use of small tags. In user:cholga's defence he/she has sought help at

) 18:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

with rehards to small tags, i was under the impression that small tags where perfectly ok accoring to the talk page policy specifically "interruptions" which stats "n some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>"). In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption.", now i didnt do the formatting perfectly but ILike2BeAnonymous' comments where quite long and his tone on the page is in attack mode and very angry, calling me capricious and sloppy.

¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs}

23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

user has relented - now no need for admin action, sbandrews (t) 20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for helping me out through this difficult situation, I have definatly learned that edit wars are fruitless and i should let others revert after i have reverted and complain and wait afterwards as everything is saved in the history.

¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs}

23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Vitalmove (again)

• Vitalmove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Warned about 3RR[17], but violates it anyway[18]. Warned about personal attacks[19], but violates it anyway[20] ("I don't know why you have a bias against Muslims and Iranians, which is evident based on your edit history, but Wikipedia is not a battleground for your personal vendetta.") He has also called me a "bully"[21] and insisted I work for the Israeli government.[22]

I ask him to maintain civility[23] so he responds with this[24] ("I'm not sure what your issues are. If you have a mental illness then please accept my hope that you get better.") Why has this user not been blocked?

07:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It would really help if someone would deal with the 3RR backlog.

Perspicacite

07:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The reviewing administrator may be interested in an entry below:

Request for guidance. Just FYI. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D}

) 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Recently I removed several external links from the article for Peter Hitchens because they linked to sites containing video content in violation of copyright, posting on the talk page afterwards (it may be appropriate to note that there has been some dispute over the length of external links section of this article and I have made other edits to the article and talk page since). Recently, however, an IP user restored these links. I undid this edit, and stated why in the edit summary. The IP user went back to their edit, the edit summary reading: "(Reverting politically-motivated vandalism)". Obviously, I don't appeciate this remark, especially since it is not possible to gain an insight into my political leanings from any of my contributions to articles and talk pages on Wikipedia. I am now uncertain how to proceed, considering this concerns an IP user, accusations of vandalism on my part and since the rules on this kind of link are firm policy and not just guidelines. Any help/advice would be appreciated, thanks. EvilRedEye 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say just revert on sight and if he keeps doing it, go over to

WP:RFPP or even ask me really nicely and we'll semi-protect. Sasquatch t|c

19:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. EvilRedEye 19:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please do something about this troll? He keeps on blatantly reverting editors whom he disagrees with on many pages, leaves insulting comments on talk pages like here, here, here and here, and refuses to cooperate. He thinks that the band Tokio Hotel is a pop band, I disagree, so I added multiple reliable sources. He blatantly reverts me, and the only comment he leaves behind is "this is fucking gay" (on my talk). As one can see by reading his talk, multiple editors had a problem with him, and he is suspected of sockpuppetry as well. SalaSkan 18:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed

18:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Warned, please re-report if this doesn't work. GDonato (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I also added my tuppence worth. LessHeard vanU 20:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! SalaSkan 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

UBX migration from 6 months back

MetsBot came through my userpage at 03:41, 9 January 2007, and replaced the its/it's userbox with one saying that I use the I-Tunes shop (which I don't). I have changed it back, but it seems like curious behaviour for a bot. There is obviously some human error (or silliness?) behind this. Kelisi 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It happened 6 months ago; this report is kind of stale. Looks like a simple UBX migration anyway.--Isotope23 19:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I recently cam across Tennis scores (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you look at his talk page, its just a list of Tennis Scores. Is this allowed?. New England 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not? I recommend that it be moved to his user page, though. SalaSkan 18:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it could be another

webspace provider. --OnoremDil

18:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page, but if you feel this guy is a sock, you're welcome to block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a new contributor who studyed wikipedia before contributing. I follow links to "places where I can get help" like this place and i am accused of being a sockpuppet. LuckyLouise is conspiring against me. This guy must be a new ager using bully like tatics to intimidate editors. He uses spelling mistakes as "evidence" that im a sockpuppet which is a very common mistake. I hate it like any reasonable person when everyone pushes me around and snarl at me for making mistakes. I wonder what insult the first person to respond to this post is gong to make. Science Solider 20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't smell very good? (j/k) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One policy you appear to have missed is

WP:BITE situation and they were rather polite when you contacted them about it. If you are not that person, you should have nothing to worry about. I'd also suggest getting used to your contributions being edited mercilessly... it's kind of how things work here.--Isotope23

21:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Molag Bal is at it again

His latest disruptive sock is called User:Molag Bal in the USA. SalaSkan 21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One can find this evening's disruptive socks here. SalaSkan 21:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

They're all blocked; multiple Molag Bal socks have been blocked for the last few days, and many were done today. It's not just Molag Bal who's returned to being heavily disruptive at the moment; the Kate McAuliffe vandal also appears to be back, except they're using a new "has a crush on" girl. I've blocked two Molag Bal socks and one KM sock today. Acalamari 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the WP:RFCU process, but perhaps we can request that a checkuser be performed on MB to prevent his IP from creating new accounts? SalaSkan 22:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Added a request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded upon that list. Acalamari 22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Panache apparently believes that my talk page is an appropriate place for personal attacks directed against me:

• [25]
• [26]

Note that these attacks are about a month apart, rather than being essentially from one burst of anger. —SlamDiego_←T 21:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Sbandrews and I have both left a note on Panache's talk page about this. Let's play it by ear, from there. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay by me. —SlamDiego_←T 23:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted Talk:Midwakh for reasons that should be obvious if you can read the deleted history. Anybody think it is worth taking further? The main article is a hell of a mess; it either needs improved or deleted. --John 21:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that anyone else needs done. Even if this stuff is illegal in some places, it's not our job to enforce the laws of the world. Friday (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Friday has a point though you have to be pretty sad to use wikipedia to score. I've redirected it to pipe anyway, revert me if you want,

SqueakBox

23:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, this is one of the saddest things I've seen. What you have to resort to when you don't have friends, wow. --MichaelLinnear 02:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the recent changes and noticed that

.

Try

WP:AIV. Corvus cornix

01:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Although this isn't the techinical place to do this, deletion review is, VirtualSteve decided to be bold and decide that some articles were unnotable and delete them [27] such as

01:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Per

WP:CSD

...

The speedy deletion policy specifies the limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without discussion. Non-administrators can request deletion of such a page by adding an appropriate template (see below). The word "speedy" in this context refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created.

If Virtual Steve thought they met the criteria, he was "within process" to delete them.

WP:DRV is the process to challenge his decision. --Richard

01:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing "out of process" as they were all expired prods, so you can't have checked them recently. You can request their undeletion from any admin at any time, but there's nothing to stop them being sent immediately to AfD. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 01:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the expiring prods on them. I could have swore I visited the Chris Kindred article a couple of days ago and it wasn't tagged.. meh, no need if it was prod'ed, but it would have been nice to be given the prod notification. — Moe ε 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

True. Just as VirtualSteve would probably like to have had notification that you were discussing him here... --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at this article. An anonymous user seems to be determined to add information about the British plan to bolster their forces by using Badgers to supplement the troops. It appears that the source they want to use is reliably equivalent to The Onion. (One of the images is a photoshopped badger in a tank...) After further review, I think I've already technically violated 3RR, and will grudgingly accept the block if so, but would appreciate some extra eyes on the page either way. --OnoremDil 02:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, the British Army had to just deny that they were using man-eating badgers in Iraq. Yeah, that war is something mad surreal. --Haemo 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

New account has been making wholesale changes including doing a pagemove to it.

He's been warned, and may have stopped, but I may not be online much longer. If people can keep an eye on it... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 02:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already on my list. More eyes will always be appreciated though. --John 02:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Am watching. Just reverted to a "safe" revision from a couple of days ago, might want to let

WP:CHEMS know. Fvasconcellos (t·c

) 02:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is the fastest block I have ever handed out. Please review and discuss here if anyone feels I have been harsh. --John 02:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I just semi-protected it as well, as they edited once as an IP before logging in and using the account. Just for a day, though. Hopefully they either go away or respond on the talk page... Georgewilliamherbert 02:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Harsh? No. Registered vandalism-only account = immediate indef block. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Cka zug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is spamming via images. The image description includes corporate advertising and links, like an article. The image is placed in categories to drive traffic. What's the best way to handle this? Jehochman ^Talk 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Images deleted, user blocked, next case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody want to deal with this Talk page and unblock "request"? Corvus cornix 04:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

On contribs perusal, shouldn't almost six months worth of almost nothing but vandalism on particular targets (I'm stretching "constructive edits" here quite a bit) be treated as a permablock offense? MSJapan 04:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Kind of makes you wish you had a 'hit him with a lead pipe' button, don't it? HalfShadow 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing constructive at all. Someone having created an account on Dec. 06, finding a podium here where to say "Deport illegals!" inside an article pretending to know enough about the related terminology, removing sprotected tags, first edit summary was 'LOL' before replacing another page w/ 'LOL' and creating another w/ 'ey dis ya gurl shanaynay ima blockhead and proud'. I am tired. He doesn't have to come tomorrow of course because it would be a waste of time. I mean another 'LOL'. Thank you Andrew c. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me quite blatant, and possibly the result of sock-puppetry. If someone could do an IP trace, I'd appreciate it. Lipsticked Pig 05:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want a checkuser, see the requests for checkuser page. Most administrators can't do that, only checkusers can. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Lipsticked Pig 05:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Gaky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might be a Danny Daniel sock. The user has appeared to have created several hoaxes. Danny Daniel sockpuppets sometimes start creating hoaxes first before editing an actual article. Most of these hoaxes (Spongebob Diseasepants, Bloo Lost in Time, and Ned's Fairly Day) seem to all relate to the articles Danny Daniel socks edit, though the username is not written in CamelCase as the last nine sockpuppets listed at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. If this was an actual sock, then it would indicate another change of username pattern (the vandal has changed his pattern several times before). Do not block this user unless I find more evidence to confirm that this user is a sock, but someone should keep on the user's contribs. Pants^(T) 06:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, tag him as you wish.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The public relations firm for

article. They have threatened to sue me on their talk page for slander and libel, and have threatened to pursue an action against wikipedia for copyright violation. In addition, despite uploading renderings of their project themselves to wikipedia under creative commons public domain, they are trying to remove the image as it shows the proximity of a wastewater treatment plant to their project.

• Legal threat: User_talk:Marketingsupport --RandomStuff 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I checked the article out of curiosity and found the following deletions by the purported PR firm [28]. They are serious claims (for example one item said the neighborhood has an unusually high number of cancers). I'm not an admin and so don't have any authority here, but in my opinion if you have support it seems they should be allowed to stay. --Vitalmove 17:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

here's one reference related to that section you mentioned, though that section could be made more npov if it were to be re-included. [[29]]. If you check the edit history of the user, though, you will see many POV edits and removal of valid sourced information. As to "purported" PR firm, the user gives their phone number and email on their talk page, which is the PR firm for Biscayne Landings. --RandomStuff 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not an admin either, but I left a note on their page suggesting that if they've got a copyright concern, to contact the office instead of making veiled threats and pointing out

WP:LEGAL. We'll see how that goes. Tony Fox (arf!) review?

18:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, the user is claiming we're not allowed to use "Biscayne Landing" in any article because the name is copyrighted. I think that's entirely frivolous but anyone with some law knowledge want to comment? Sasquatch t|c 18:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much law knowledge, but I know you can't copyright a name or title.--SarekOfVulcan 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but Sarek is correct, you can't copyright a name. "Biscayne Landings" is trademarked, but that just precludes using the logo in the article, not the name itself. Perhaps our marketing friend didn't take business law classes.--Isotope23 19:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Biscayne Landing, LLC has trademarked the words "BISCAYNE LANDING" [30] as part of the mark, not just the logo, but using the trademarked name of the product to describe the product in this manner is not an infringing use. -- DS1953 ^talk 20:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call, I missed that when I looked at the TM site.--Isotope23 12:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reported him at

20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the most recent reversion and it seems to me that there should be a middle ground somewhere. By the way, using a tool that leaves an edit summary identifying the changes as "vandalism" is not a good idea. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are so many edits back and forth today, you may have missed that Marketingsupport completely blanked out the page several times already. While a specific small edit by Marketingsupport might not look like vandalism, the user has shown bad faith, bad intentions, and repetedly made the same edit that they were asked not to make (by multiple editors) due to POV issues. So while I agree with DS1953 in principle, in this instance of multiple reversions/legal threats/blanking of pages, I think using an automated tool to undo repeated acts like may be appropriate. --RandomStuff 22:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I recently blocked Mosquera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 12 hours for disruptive edit-warring, personal attacks and aggressive lobbying against Wikipedia's non-free content rules. Mosquera is one of those editors who dislike the restrictive policy on fair use and vigorously defend their "right" to upload replaceable non-free images. While blocked, he created an obvious sockpuppet, Tarmikos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (editing the same articles, reverting to the same versions, created an hour after Mosquera's block, typical temporal editing sequences, finally editing pages in Mosquera's user space while logged in as Tarmikos). I blocked Tarmiko but let Mosquera off for the moment. But now Mosquera is giving his own blocked sockpuppets barnstars, including fake barnstars claimed to be by a third party ([31]). There had previously been issues about possibly fake barnstars being posted to Mosquera himself.

What are we going to do with him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week this time. I still think of a longer block because i am afraid this behaviour would just flourish. But we'll see. You haven't mentioned trolling and foolling wikipedia but i'd just consider that part of the sock violation. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He also seems to have posted as User:Enríuqui while blocked, although only to his talk page, so I'm not sure that counts as evasion of a block. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the bare IP 77.181.77.173 was him editing during his original block as well. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A week sounds about right to me. We shouldn't ignore the fact that he may still make positive contributions (even if I personally don't see much encyclopedic value in series of articles about not-even-yet-aired telenovelas, but that's just my taste) But as long as he insists on climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman to defend his non-free images, he'll be more a liability than an asset to the project, I'm afraid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. ElinorD (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Also agree, besides, in one week all his images tagged as replaceable non-free content will, most likely, be deleted. :) Garion96 (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Only one week? Most merciful to Mosquera, not sure about Wikipedia.Proabivouac 04:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I am 100% sure he is a sock so 1 week = 1 year if not indef. I have no idea whose sock he is. When you give them 1 week today, you'd still have the option to give them an indef a week later. Maybe even before. Who knows? I'd not object at all if someone extends his block but i am sure it would change nothing in this case. So better give them a week. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean Mosquera himself is somebody else's bad-hand account? Could well be, judging from how quickly he jumped into the fair use debates as a newbie. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: He's most probably Yakuman (talk · contribs). I've filed a checkuser request at the Abu badali Arbcom case, because he used both accounts to make accusatory statements against Abu badali in that case, which would constitute a pretty grave case of abusive sockpuppetry, in my opinion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an edit war over

06:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This user reverted an edit of mine. My edit had restored an image which had been removed under some fair-use claim (only one picture per page). A talkpage discussion had come to the conclusion that, since the images illustrated different things, both were perfectly in line with policy.

I warned the user for this - maybe slightly too

.

I politely pointed out that though removal of warnings is allowed, it's not a good or smart thing to do. That message was also promptly removed. As a final resort to make the user see sense, I explained my original

) 14:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: user informed of this thread. I'll post if s/he deletes the note.--Rambutan (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

please state where the "talkpage discussion " mentioned is, please state the policy violation, Tankyou The Fashion Icon 14:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Coming up... just hold it a moment.--Rambutan (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Right... the "talkpage discussion" regarded

according to your favourite policy, we should be courteous), not that you should remove the image at all since there's a consensus that it should stay. Going against consensus is disruptive

.

Ultimately, the image had every right to be there, and removing it could be

WP:TROLL are quite close at hand.--Rambutan (talk

) 14:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

so one good faith edit constitues vandalism? and the grounds for claiming consensus are. . . .? The Fashion Icon 14:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It may have been good faith, but it wasn't right to simply undo someone's work without providing a reason. That can't really be good faith, in fact: if it was, you would have looked into the issue and then explained your point of view. The consensus I spoke of is the one which enabled the policy listed to become policy. If the consensus was not to have that policy, it wouldn't exist. Most people agree that more than one image per article is fine, since that is policy. May I remind you of

WP:TROLL again, please?--Rambutan (talk

) 14:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no "one FU picture per article rule". As long as the NFCC is followed, a thousand near-identical fair use images can be used in an article. For example, When Your Heart Stops Beating has three near-identical colours. We have all three, all of them have rationales, and whether album covers pass the NFCC is left for another thread, though. Will ^(talk) 14:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are not claiming a concensus to keep the image in the article? Where did this "one FU picture per article rule" concept come from anyway? My objection was to the inclusion of a fair use image which did not convey anything which wasnt already conveyed in the other image. The Fashion Icon 15:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

FashionIcon, I'm not continuing this argument until you answer the following question to indicate that you're not violating

. It's probably worth you reading those policies first, so you know what you're talking about. In fact, once you've read them, you'll see how my warning wasn't trolling.

• What is your aim in arguing this debate? Why do you want to win? I'm simply answering your questions, but you're asking them with the aim of winning. If that's your sole aim, then you must stop, because you're causing disruption and preventing me from editing Wikipedia as I normally would, just to make your
  point
  .

If you give a satisfactory answer, I'll continue to explain how Wikipedia works to you.--Rambutan (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

All I want is an end to your bullying and harrassment, initiated over one single edit, as agreed here [32], perhaps I am culpible in feeding the troll, I have encouraged this bullying The Fashion Icon 15:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[33] Please note: I am not a

) 15:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue of whether the second fair use image should be considered on the article talk page, I don't think it is really a matter needing administrator assistance. Yes, The Fashion Icon acted incorrectly in reverting without discussion, but perhaps people were a little too hasty to label that edit vandalism. I would say that there is little to be gained from discussing the matter here, and the issue should be taken to the article talk page, civilly. There is no gross incivility here, no obvious rulebreaking, and I am sure you are capable of working together. J Milburn 15:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't concerned with the actual issue - there's nothing to discuss there, the policy is a bright-line rule. I was concerned at FI's behaviour, but apparently that's fine too! Good show!--Rambutan (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

TonyWonderBread (

15:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The image has been deleted, and I've left a note on his talk page asking him to stop. I'll keep an eye on him and take further action if he persists. Shadow1 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So have I. Actually Blueboy you could have done that first before coming here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If it had been just me, yes, I'd have warned him myself. But he sent it to five others ... to me, that took it up a notch.

96

16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I think he was trolling all right. I'm just saying that you don't have to be an admin to open a dialogue with somone. Anyone can ask a user to stop being disruptive. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Can a kind soul please have a word with

16:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never reported a contributor before, and always found a way to make a compromise, even grudgingly, in my two years of editting Wikipedia. However, I feel User:195.212.52.6 bares no hallmarks of good faith, or contructive editting, and hope to halt this issue asap as there are a number of serious breaches of policy.

Checking against the "Definition of disruptive editing and editors" at

).

His problem stems from the city of Manchester's (unofficial, but verifiable and contextual) claim to second city status over Birmingham. It's a matter of civic pride of course, but User:195.212.52.6 is becoming increasingly vindictive about this.

We've offered a compromise, asked for

.

His/Her IP talk page outlines just some of mine and others attempts of engaging with this user to be more respectful and fair (including 3RR warnings).

Some diffs:

• Leaving unhelpful "vandalism" warning - its a content and resource issue of course.
• Single purpose accounts, joining WikiProjects with intent to distrupt
• Admitting intent to disrupt anything about the status of Manchester, on Wikipedia, and anywhere else
• Admission of intent, immaturity and unencyclopedic entries

I would very much welcome assistance or feedback here. I have remained civil and polite throughtout this month of wikistress. Jza84 18:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Contextual Background I've also been involved with reverting some of the edit's by User:195.212.52.6 on Manchester, the editor has a personal dislike of the city which he has moved to the pages of Wikipedia. This is very evident in his use of phrasing [here] and on History of Manchester see here [[39]]. the concept that is mentioned on the article is that it has been noted that many people (weasle words?) beleive Manchester to be the second city of the United Kingdom. Some of User:195.212.52.6's sources to discount the claim have had little substance such as a correction page in The New York Times from 1995. These constant reversions are not help the article or Wikipedia, many of the editors are busy re-writing and find new sources for the article in an effort to raise it to good article status. All this warring is a constant distraction and very frustrating to commited editors who are here to make Wikipedia good. Mike33 18:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also been brought to my attention that this person (self styled Proffessor Rob Right), is contributing to other websites with this campaign (see here). It's clearly a personal matter which in my view is clouding his ability to write fairly, neutrally or mediate rationally. Jza84 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:79.73.36.212 is demostrating exacting contributions (good faith to one side, I think it's reasonable to assume this is the same contributor). I've extended an opportunity to engage with other users about this matter here, as well as left a "reliable sources" level 1 warning on his talk page, but he just keeps reverting. Any chance of assistance yet? Jza84 00:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked Geoffrey Mitchell indef as he revealed Sceptre's real life identity using a sock IP (User:24.173.10.197) - the contribs are very similar if you take a look, and checkuser stated they were from the same ISP (view evidence) - unfortunately, the edit where the IP revealed the information has been oversighted now so I can't provide a link. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean "fortunately, the edit where the IP revealed the information has been oversighted"...by the way, there's a thread below about this. Daniel 01:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not Geoffrey/24 who posted that information on ED that's pushing me towards leaving. I am 95% certain who that person is (If it's who I think he is, I know him in real life). Will ^(talk) 01:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Daniel, of course it's fortunate that the edits were oversighted - I just meant it's unfortunate that I haven't got any evidence to show he did reveal the identity. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right place to go with this, but I'm at the end of my rope with wikipedia. I was an ip editor for quite awhile and only occassionally made a little correct here and there. One day I came across

wiki, and noted that the vast majority of users both in the edit history and in the talk page had major concerns that were not being addressed(malik either reverting their edits or no response to their concerns about certain material in the wiki). Thus, I removed the speculative comments and libelous comments(on living persons) from the wiki that had no support. This was the consensus of the editors both in the edit history and in the talk page, about a 6 to 1 consensus-- I actually counted after I was accussed of vandalism and made it known i was enforcing consensus, not randomly deleting things, only specifica things that had been detailed in talk. And that's what happened, i was accussed of vandalism for enforcing consensus, I was even BLOCKED for vandalism, though its obvious the material I was moving did not belong, neither by wikipedia merit nor by consensus opinion.

I appealed my block, and was almost instantly turned down by the reviewing adminstrator who must not have even taken the time to view the edit history of the page and the overall opinion of wiki in the talk page. I told them to look at the consensus in both the edits and the talk page. I was not a vandal, and I thought people were supposed to assume good faith? Malik Shabazz's good faith was to call me a vandal at the time, which is interesting givem what happens afterwards.

Now it comes to the

wiki and Malik Shabazz is again trying to ram is POV down other editors' throats. You can look at the talk page and you will notice that there are three editors agreeing WITH ME that the material regarding bobby cutts's violent past should be included in the article. Despite this, Malik Shabazz continues to revert the material in question, claiming a different reason for his removal of the material almost every time he removes it. My reading of of vandalism was that repeated edits that do not add to the wiki were considered vandalism, so I've been noting that I consider his edits acts of vandlism-- after it had been clear that the consensus was against him. Today out of the blue I get some guy that pops into my talk page claiming I'm about to break the 3RRV if I make another edit, despite the fact I had only made 2 edits on the page in the pervios 24-36 hours and was by no means close to being over 3RRV. This was a clear attempt to bully a new user to wikipedia and was disgusting to see. I've also been accused in my talk page of being people I am not and saying and doing things that I never did. When I question these people for their strange claims, I am met with very rude behavior and to leave their precious talk pages alone, despite the fact they came to me talk page first and accused me of these absurdities.

How am I supposed to assume good faith when I have been nothing but abused here by biased moderation and by bullying, POV-pushing editors?? This is not an evironment conducive to such things. Is there any way I can go about get the activities of these users and adminstrators looked at by people "higher up" or something? Users

07:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you want us to do, choose sides? Have you tried

dispute resolution? --Ezeu

07:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. What should I do? I don't know much about wikipedia. All I know is that I've been treated very unfairly at the very least.KillerPlasmodium 07:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So, let's see. On

reliable sources

guidelines. You have also asserted that the page is being "written by some black racists".

On

living person

. It should, of course, be noted that the accused in this case are black, while the victim is a white woman.

While I'm not going to tell you what you should do about these edits, since I think they speak for themselves, I will put it to you that you have a rather obvious

a request for comment. --Haemo

08:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was reading your uhhh, stuff, there for a bit, until I hit "It should, of course, be noted that the accused in this case are black, while the victim is a white woman.", at which point it became clear I was appears to have made a racist comment, hence I give your opinion little merit. Why should it "OF COURSE" be noted that he is black and she is white? I will say I did not remove anything that did not have to be removed in according to wikipedias own BLP or were speculative unsupported statements, KillerPlasmodium 08:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not call other users racist if you disagree with them. It is not helpful or

civil. --Dark Falls ^talk

08:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, do not put words in my mouth please. I said THE COMMENT APPEARS TO BE RACIST. which it does. I did not say it was racist nor did i say he was racist. This is beginning to look like a complete witch hunt. Correction, what happened was what I wrote and thought "stuck" was blocked because changes were ebign to the page, when i pasted I pasted an old version my edit. What i mean to say about was that the comment appears to be racist, not what I wrote up there. Though that is no doubt how I felt, but I did not intend to say that. I changed it, as it's not what I intended and only ended up there because of the edit conflict casuing to paste my "rough draft" verion .sorry.KillerPlasmodium 08:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out the racial context of the article you were editing. If I just mentioned

Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom in the context of this dispute, and didn't mention race, I would be missing the point here; it was meant to illustrate that you, too, appear to have a strong point of view when it comes to articles that deal with race. It is important to notice that the two disputes you appear to be involved in share an important similarity. --Haemo

08:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Firstly, you have never been blocked for vandalism, as stated in the block log. I would strongly suggest ceasing to call Shabazz's editing "vandalism", as it can be upsetting and lacking in

Neutral Point of View policy when editing mainspace... --Dark Falls ^talk

08:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Similar attitude without edits here on Talk :Barack Obama.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvoz (talk • contribs) Not signing was an oversight - I stand by my posts. Tvoz |talk 21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Smells like a bit of a witch hunt Tvoz. Please sign your comments. I wasn't aware I wasn't alowed to have an opinion nor aquestion the material presented in that highly NPOV (ROFL) Obama fan site, er, I mean wikipedia entry.KillerPlasmodium 08:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, see the above. Your comments on that article as well fall into a pattern which explains your point of view, and goes to the heart of your dispute. These editors are merely trying to point out that this goes further than simply a content dispute here. --Haemo 08:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That was my reason for including it. Tvoz |talk 21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Get the chair and rope. I'll meet you at the lake. Bring your cryptic responses with you for my eulogyKillerPlasmodium 08:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to attack you here; I'm merely explaining that you appear to have a strong point of view on issues that surround race. This may cause your opinion about certain types of material, especially

neutrality, to be different from what the community tends to expect on this matter. --Haemo

08:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

From all of this, it appears that Mr. Plasmodium does not play well with others. A sad thing on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. KillerPlasmodium is blocked indefinitely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

From the way he was acting, especially with the "chair and rope" comment and the apparent strong view of racism, the block was inevitable. --Dark Falls ^talk 09:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request denied and block endorsed for severe disruption. Sandstein 16:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a right to post my evidence before the arbitation and it is being removed by a accused editor.Please help.It is for the panel to accept or reject my evidence.The arbitation page edits are only allowed by those giving evidence and they can edit only there section an accused editor or anyone cannot edit other's sections. [40]Adyarboy 13:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That arbitration case is closed, I don't think you can add evidence there anymore. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I had given my evidence before the case was closed on July 10th.you can verify the date of my edit here.[41].The case was closed on july 11th and my evidence cannot be edited by an accused editor on july 14th.It should remain on record and it cannot be edited by an accused editor.Thank you for your prompt responseAdyarboy 13:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This was also posted on my talkpage (I was clerk for this case) and I have responded there. Newyorkbrad 13:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad I understand that No one should be editing the evidence page in a closed case.But Sarvagnya vandalised it by removing [42] which I reverted to what was there when the case was closed.[43] I understand I have taken up the issue with the admin.All evidence presented before the case was closed should be there and Sarvagnya or anyone can change what is there after the case was closed.Adyarboy

Sarvagnya was not accused of anything by arbcom. Obviously Sarvagnya thought your "evidence" was presented after the closing of the case. You are not remotely attempting to

assume good faith. ANI isn't the "block shopping board" and neither is arbcom.Bakaman

18:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Bakasuprman and Adyarboy, following Remedy #7 of the said Arbitration Case, I hereby hit the two of you on the head with a stick. Please feel appropriately chastised. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Adyarboy wasn't named as a party to the case, so Remedy #7 doesn't exactly apply here. Except, well, take a look at his contributions and tell me if you hear some

quacking. BTW, that's an excellent stick. --Akhilleus (talk

) 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you're quite welcome to have a go and try it out yourself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia,

Cyber-bullying is the key reason why many people choose not to interact on the internet. As an online community, we are not going to be successful unless we coral cyber-stalkers and bullies. Unfortunately, one user has successfully targeted me. This started when I entered Wikipedia to edit an article for an Iranian television station.

I added a list of the station's shows, but

. When I tried to correct this vandalism he had me banned on technicality for 3RR. Fortunately, the Press TV article has since been locked and is safe from his harm. I have also been unblocked.

Having found a target, he proceeded to unleash his wrath. Apparently by viewing my edit history, he discovered and targeted my article on

.

On a frenzy of harassment. he ignores my request to be left alone, and has now attempted to have me permanently banned. [51] [52]. His supporting evidence is the harassment described above, and his "ally" is the user Zntrip, with whom he had previously tried to ban the Mark Levine article. Note that even Zntrip has since abandoned him. [53]In his request, he also falsely claims I insisted he was an Israeli agent.

All of this started because I wanted to add to an article for an Iranian television station. I have now had to waste days dealing with this cyber-bully, and it has caused me great stress to be targeted in this way. If this were the real world, I could easily get a restraining order. Unfortunately these sorts of people rule some parts of cyberspace. I think as a matter of policy Wikipedia needs to find a way to control this behavior. Wikipedia should be a place where parties share information by editing articles which interest them, not a playground for the mentally ill or anti-social. It is alarming to think someone like Perspicacite could have access to people's IP addresses and personal e-mail addresses (which I certainly will not reveal to wikipedia until I am more comfortable.) Articles related to Iran have just as much a right to exist as any other article, and I should not be targeted and harassed for editing one. I'm writing to see what protection Wikipedia provides against such behavior.

--Vitalmove 16:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the comment in bold at the top of the page: Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes. The Evil Spartan 19:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to help that's your choice, but was there really a need to demean my concerns? I noticed that in another discussion, you also belittled Iranian concerns of bias. [54] --Vitalmove 22:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever else aside, that is good advice. Short comments are more likely to get read and responded to. Cheers, WilyD 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Before I give out any warnings, I would like to know whether or not others here agree that Mandsford (talk · contribs)'s conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Iranian sentiment (3rd nomination) is inappropriate. Basically, Mandsford decided to ridicule my defense of my position on the page [55]. because I had made 22 posts up to that time. As Mandsford is a relatively new user (approx. 750 edits) I responded by pointing out that I essentially was defending my position (as is expected in a debate) and further clarifying my position [56].

However, Mandsford's next response was "23...23...23..."[57]. IMO, this was much more uncivil than even his original nonconstructive comment, so before giving him the user talk page warning that I think he deserves I'd like to check with you all that I am approaching this correctly. Does a warning sound appropriate? Thanks for any advice. The Behnam 19:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say this is a non-issue. Yes, he was rude, but I'm afraid you hurt your case a bit by responding a bit rudely yourself. The Evil Spartan 19:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I can see what you are saying; I suppose that I may have been getting a bit too frustrated with stuff going on. But what about Mandsford? I figure that he acted that way because he is too new to realize that taunting isn't considered appropriate in debates. Can you nicely tell him something about that please? Honestly, I'm afraid that if I do he'll just be snotty with me. The Behnam 19:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that I've called for delete on this page myself, that might not be a good idea. Besides, sticks and stones my break my bones - just forget about it. The Evil Spartan 19:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Hopefully the fact that you removed his trolling will send the message anyway. The Behnam 19:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I lost my account password on my other computer and so began editing as

20:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Catastrophism pseudoscience? Is Cambridge University Press mistaken. [58]"
• "extremely well-connected" .. I'm a member of the Society. For all I know you're a member of the Skeptics Society, or an Astronomy Society. Does that make you well-connected, and have a COI?
• I make no living from doing Web design for the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, a Charitable Organsiation, and one of a number of organisations I do work for, out of my own pocket.
• I'm also a member of Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth,[59], so presumably there's a conflict of interest editing any green or human rights articles. I'm also a paid member of a political organisation, so there must be COI editing any article on politics.
• I deleted changes to the article on Anthony Peratt because "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material [..] about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion"[60] And you used the Web page of an organisation that you consider to be pseudoscience,[61] as your source... and the source doesn't even support your statements!
• I summarised the issue on the talk page. --Iantresman 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to report one admin who has grossly misused admin previlage,

01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

IPSOS is not an admin, as far as I can tell. —Kurykh 01:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Many editors mistakenly believe that the issuance of warnings is a prerogative exclusive to admins. —SlamDiego_←T 02:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone want to take a look at User:Link2dan, and do whatever needs to be done? User:Argyriou (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Argyriou. I

PRODded the userpage. Shalom ^Hello

04:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been difficult and deleted it as blatant advertising --W.marsh 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

.

Tom harrison, Tbeatty, and MONGO, strong POV warriors who also want this page deleted, will probably now actively support his actions.

The page move, the underlying problem which started this argument, will be dealt with in an upcoming RfC.Divestment 01:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm an admin? That's news to me. The comment was trolling; here is the diff. Divestment has moved the page against consensus multiple times today. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Divestment (talk · contribs) is a special-purpose sock account established for page moving. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

All that aside, how does this require administrator attention? It looks like Pablo has decided not to remove your comments (which are, for the record, less than

RfC. How can an admin, exactly, help? --Haemo

02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was about to be banned, but Pablothegreat85 is not an admin, and has no authority to do this. Divestment 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

An admin less involved than I am might block the special-purpose sock account. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Other than noting that you're a brand new

WP:RFPP, and is now filing an RfC. MastCell ^Talk

02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And having reviewed the contribs in more depth, I've indefinitely blocked Divestment (talk · contribs). It's obvious from his contribs that this isn't his first rodeo, and that this is a single-purpose disruptive sockpuppet account. MastCell ^Talk 02:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I get some feedback from other admins, based on the rationale provided at User Talk:Divestment, regarding the appropriateness of this block? MastCell ^Talk 02:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I support this block (as a non-admin), this SPA only pops-up to move war on this article. - Merzbow 03:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As this username has done almost nothing but repeated page moves against consensus without participating in discussion, this indefinite block is well-warranted.Proabivouac 03:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed that Travb is Divestment as he claims and that he has also likely used various IP's in an effort to canvass votes on the last Afd on the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States article. See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Travb. Calling myself and others on the opposite side of the debate POV pushers seems to be begging the question. Unlike those that have been on the same "side" of Travb in the disagreements on this article, we haven't used socks, IP's and three of us haven't been blocked recently for violating 3RR as have TravB's compatriots.--MONGO 06:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To get around the indefinite block, Divestment has now switched back to using the Travb account. Pablo Talk | Contributions 15:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The sock was blocked for being a sock and to prevent further socking. The main account was not since it was ended with a right to vanish. This is obviously the case of they would have blocked the main account. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see no problem with Travb adopting a sock based on right to vanish; it's rather that the behavior of User:Divestment warranted an indefinite block regardless of the identity of the user. I also see no problem with having spared the Travb username the block based on RTV. However, now that Travb has exercized the right to unvanish as Travb, I cannot see why this username should be immune from this block: he/she has picked up to resume exactly the same conflict for which User:Divestment was blocked as if nothing at all had happened. I cannot see the purpose of subjecting the encyclopedia to what can only be more disruption to come. As there has been no apology or pledge to change - indeed this edit to user page indicates that Travb stills sees nothing wrong with the behavior that led to this thread - and RTV is no longer an issue, an extension of the Divestment block to Travb would seem appropriate.Proabivouac 03:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Travb has acted disruptively, using his new account to move war and his IP's to canvass editors for the Afd for the same article he was move warring as Divestment. At the very least, his Travb account should be blocked for disruption since we block editors, not accounts anyway.--MONGO 05:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This conversation indicates he is bascially proud of evading his indefinite ban for disruption using the username of Divestment.--MONGO 05:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Time wasters, POV pushers, trolls, they need to be shown the door...don't expect me to kiss their ass as I do so." Right Mongo?

You know the problem with that link you provided MONGO? People may look at it. Pablo and Morton are patting themselves on the back for booting divestment and saying it was funny, and I respond "hilarious ain't it". That is a really long to say I am "basically proud". The link User:Proabivouac provides is my explaining to the world that I was User:Divestment, "sees nothing wrong with the behavior" is a fantasty.

Please note, User:Proabivouac, User:Tbeatty, and User:Pablothegreat85 are active POV editors on the

State terrorism by the United States

page, who have opposing POVs.

EVERYTHING I DID WITH

WP:SPA. User:Proabivouac ignores this, so his logic fails completely. Established editors are allowed to move pages, in fact many editors on the state terrorism page have. User:Travb is an established editor, editing since October 2005. Is wikipedia going to boot established editors for moving pages? Of course not. User:Divestment, the account I opened two months after m:Right to vanish

is closed, so what rule am I now violating?

As I explained below, the reason I left

w:Right to vanish

was okay.

Again, if you really want to pursue this, call a RfC, why would MONGO get a RfC before getting punished, and I don't?

Travb (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

EVERYTHING (laugh) you did as User:Divestment would be OKAY for an establish editor? Are you kidding...all you did was move war the article to a different name repeatedly...are you kidding? Check your grand contributions again Divestment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--MONGO 20:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And who "move war'd" it back? Takes two, or sometimes three. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Travb, you wrote, "Please note, User:Proabivouac…[is an] active POV editor on the

State terrorism by the United States page…" Which is puzzling, as I do not recall having made a single edit to that article, or to its talk page, but only reviewed the situation upon seeing this thread.Proabivouac

22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support indef block of travb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for disruption and use of sockpuppets to evade scrutiny of past trolling. --Tbeatty 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment and Strong Oppose: I do not feel this is fair. All of the above editors advocating blocking him, are strong POV opponents who are or were actively enaged in heated content disputes with him, pov warriors, and were edit warring with him in politically controverisal articles. To me, blocking him for the vauge "disruption" when the distruption was clearly the result of both sides of many editors being involved in a signifiant content dispute (luckily this has finally calmed down and there is progress being made--with Travb's participation) strikes me as a way to single out and get rid of a vaunerable POV opponent and thus gain an upper hand in a content dispute, or future ones. Therefore, any assessment about this editor should come from nuetral non-involved admins and with an understanding of this context. I think that an Indef blocks against this editor on this basis is certainly inappropriate; community bans require a clear and large consensus. If there is a case to be made against this edtitor, I say take it to Arbcom after the normal dispute resolution steps are followed. In anycase, Travb is working with others on the article, and I don't see him being the primary cause of distruption, in anycase. If he is being primarily distruptive, then give him a warning, a block, a longer block, and if it continues and the claims are valid, then we can talk about indef. ban.Giovanni33 07:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  POV warriors...? Shall we look at your use of socks and your outrageously long list of 3RR violations for which you have been blocked? This has to do with Travb's canvassing with one of his IP's and using his User:Divestment username to move war...Divestment was his only known named account, and is indef blocked. He switched back to using his Travb account to evade the indef block...we block editors if they are being disruptive regardless of what account they decide to edit with.--MONGO 10:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Okay Mongo and you clique, I asked you not to bring up personal information, but you started it. Here we go.

Sorry so long....

Mongo has a long history of edit warring and abuse of other editors, a few months ago he was desopyed for this abuse. He has had two Arbcoms called against him and two RfCs.

After calling someone an anti-American, on this same page above he wrote:

"all I am trying to do is ensure that articles about my own country aren't taken over by POV pushers who are not editing from the U.S"

"Time wasters, POV pushers, trolls, they need to be shown the door...don't expect me to kiss their ass as I do so." #1.1 Is this an acceptable edit? and #1 MONGO: vexatious litigation

For a full list of MONGOs behavior up until December 2, 2006 see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Travb I particualy call your attention to how MONGO calls other editors "bigots" and "racist bigots" hasn't MONGO had Teatty ban or has't MONGO banned other editors for less?

While I deeply respect MONGO hard work on National park pages, One of MONGOs purpose on wikipedia is clear: Delete all content which does not match his own POV. Tbeatty, Tom Harrison, and the others above find articles which do not meet their POV and then put them up for deletion. They also remove large portions of referenced materials which dont meet their POV. Any information which is critical of the United States or of the official account of 9/11 will be deleted by this group.

Defector Recently, someone defected from this group, now banned User:NuclearUmpf he revealed that this group actively emails each other and tells each other how and when to vote. He said he really liked MONGO as an admin because he was more active whereas admin Tbeatty? was "lazy".

I think the edit history shows that this group uses the admin powers of Tbeatty to push their agenda.

My behavior If the above POV editors dont like my behavior, call a RfC. But leave me a space at the top, because I can't respond in full until after September 15, because of the

Bar exam and a one month vacation to the FSU

. Mongo, you get the priveledge of RfCs and Arbcoms for your behavior, why can't I?

I am not going to edit the State terrorism of the United States page until after September 15, maybe forever. After my page name change idea was universally condemned (I am glad the opposing sides agree on something) I have decided that some editors like to edit war, and there is no point in editing the page any longer. If you look at the page history, I have been involved for over a year trying to get disputes resolved, calling straw polls, mediators, etc.

Regarding User:Divestment and Mongo's other accusations. I left wikipedia on March 5. The reason is because of this group of editors in MONGOs words "show(ed me) the door".

I was tired of wikipedia. So I requested. m:Right to vanish on 12:49, 5 March 2007. My userpage was blanked. I no longer used that userpage.

Over two months later, (2 months, 10 days) I created User:Divestment.

I read m:Right to vanish in March and I read it today, and I still can't see the policy on editors who want to return. I was NEVER attempting to break wikipolicy. I never used Divestment and Travb together in any Discussion etc. Divestment was not intented as a sock, it was intended as a replacement for Travb. All of the actions of the User:Divestment would be "okay" if done by an established editor such as User:Travb. Mongo himself on his talk page talks about leaving his user name.

I was not avoiding any blocks, etc. on user:Travb by using this Divesment account.

My use of this User:Divestment has consisted of moving the page name. During this same time, other editors moved the page to the same page name I was.[64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] Other users continue to support this page move name. (This last edit war for moving was started by an account which has been indefinetly banned) On this page I also asked for page protection from massive deletions by editors whose single purpose has historically to delete the page.

Irony the extreme irony of MONGOs "clique"'s arguements is that they call those who want to preserve referenced information on wikipedia "disruptive". Yet, MONGOs "clique" searches wikipedia for articles that don't match their own POV and delete them. They also delete large sections of reference material, call other peoples names like "anti-american" "racist bigot" and begin edit wars. When editors like myself attempt to stop the deletion of well referenced material, we are labeled the disruptive ones.

I have created several dozen articles and added immense amount of information to wikipedia, 99% with references. I have vigourously also defended the deletion of articles which don't match my own POV. Travb (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again you make accusations without any facts. Two glaring ones are that 1) I put any articles up for deletion and 2) that other editors "uses the admin powers of Tbeatty to push their agenda." Since I haven't put any articles up for deletion in quite a while and I have no admin powers that I am aware of, it becomes clear that your long diatribe is lacking in the truth. You can throw the mud and hope it sticks and this would fit your MO but is just more evidence of your disruption. Your inability to edit without falsely accusing editors of wrongdoing is the primary reason you are so disruptive and tendentious. --Tbeatty 07:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The same people who wanted the 'state terrorism' page deleted will surely appear as they have been edit warring at the article since the failed AfD. MONGO - TBeatty - Morton - Pablo - Ultramarine. I think it is a shame that this is the method used to get rid of the opposing view point. How are we as an encyclopedia suppose to achieve NPOV on articles that is the case? Not on that page there have been some highlited such as opposing view points that have been working contructively, such as Tom harrison, Merzbow etc. and working with Bigtimepeace and others. I do not know about much of the above, but I can say I have asked MONGO not to attack users numerous times. He has been calling people trolls, sockpuppets, SPA's, anti-american, bigots etc. The worst part is, lately he has not proposed anything to add or discussed anything regarding the article, it seems to be just chiming in to make a personal remark, threaten someone with a soon to be ban etc. This issue was ignored above as just another MONGo witch hunt, which seems to be the way people take these things. Just consider how many people have been chased off this project by MONGO and his behaviour and what they could have contributed. I have so far created 5 articles in just the short time I have been here, 1 month or so, and this constant ignoring of his behaviour is making me consider leaving. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• PUBLIC APOLOGY Two users above have the gravely mistaken view, that I am "proud" of having to leave User:Travb and later returning to Travb. This is dead wrong. I want to publicly apologize for any wikipedia rules that I may have broke when I left User:Travb. If I did break any rules, I apologize. I am at a loss about what I could or should have done differently (A name change?). I am not going to edit the State Terrorism page, the page which is the nexus of this argument, until after September 15. I am seriously considering never editing it again, as I explained above. I hope this is acceptable. Travb (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  My, my.--MONGO 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  My o my o my ... useful commentary indeed, o my my o my. This is not a in person conversation, you do not have to post things such as this, just like we do not reply to others saying *shakes head in silent agreement* as a post. Passive agreesive behavior gets you agressive people. Wait, thats called baiting I believe. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  I think staying away from State Terrorism is a great idea. The relevant guideline is

  WP:DISRUPT: you can't just keep on pushing ad infinitum.Proabivouac

  22:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Block on the condition that he cleans up his behavior, and he seems to be motivated to do so. However, I think he should be on a shorter leash. That is to say, a block would require less questionable behavior from Travb than from an "average" editor. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Block of Travb. As someone outside of this discussion, I thought maybe I could interject a totally neutral opinion. So, I spent the last several minutes scrolling through his edits and he is prolific editor with hundreds if not thousands of edits and seems to be willing to discuss edits as well. Best, --
  Tally-ho!
  05:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User Haco (also posting as IP 89.98.105.183) has begun posting links to his own site on multiple cruise ship articles. He was warned beginning on July 6 and was blocked by GDonato for spamming links. He was unblocked a few days later and has resumed spamming. I have tried to engage him in conversation on his talk page but his only response has been to continue to post links to his site. Please see his most recent contributions where he continues to link spam with no discussion whatsoever. I am no longer interested in pushing multiple reverts on all of these articles where he is continually pushing his personal site. Thanks! Malson 16:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinately and the IP for six months. Spammers are not welcome here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted on

11:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite the repeated objections of multiple editors and patient explanations about the difference between primary and secondary sources on the user's talk page, Shashwat pandey (talk · contribs) insists on repeatedly reverting articles to his own version against consensus. The primary article in question is Sahaj Marg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This article's subject is a meditation practice. There are separate articles about two primary orgs which practice it. This user repeatedly tries to turn the article into one about some dispute between these two organizations. Could some admin attempt to intervene here. I understand this user has been blocked once already and only unblocked because he agreed to cooperate with other editors. He is not keeping this agreement. IPSOS (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

There is sequence of personal attack on me rather then my contribution same was the case with previous admin also, there is one user Reneeholla [72] who has created an atmosphers against me, and any single edit that i am doing is being reverted, subject is not discussed on article talk page but is done on admins talk page, this is highly inappropriate. and such personal attack, must be avoided at all cost. in case of above admin also, kindly have a look at talk page of the article [73] there is no explaination given by above user regarding his reverts and change's, whereas there is more then 25 edits have been done by the user, including variuous reverts [74] again no note on talk page. It was repeadly requested by me not to change the content of the page as it is under mediation process [75] but still the entire page has been changed and no discussion was done on talk page, all discussion is done only on admins talk page see here [76] this is not a healthy approach towards debate and reaching a concensus. any advice will be highly appritiated.Adding one section is by no means disruptive edits, as i have asked incase there is any violation of wiki policy, [77] above user also seems to be prejudice rather then keeping an open view kindly advice on how to maintain a fair atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding, without any personal attack--Shashwat pandey 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Article is protected. Involved editors have been advised to pursue
  WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
  14:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers inappropriately deleted.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Pending has been blanked with the rationale “THIS PAGE IS DEPRECATED!” However, when one jumps through the request hoops, one is clearly told

Don't forget to add {{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive271}} to the checkuser page here.

(See, for example the message box on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon.) Thus, the blanking of RfC/Pending has caused multiple RfCs to vanish inappropriately.

• The deleted RfCs need to be restored.
• If RfC/Pending is truly not to be used, then the script that generate the RfC case pages needs to be changed very quickly.

—SlamDiego_←T 23:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now posted a transclusion of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, but I believe that it would be better if an admin took care of the other deleted requests. —SlamDiego_←T 23:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, this looks like we've kind of half-closed the pending part of the board, but the scripts aren't totally fixed. I hope someone with the necessary experience and skill can fix this quickly. --Haemo 23:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• In my opinion it's not a big issue, we left a huge message on /Pending asking people to go to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser instead. Presumably, we could AWB all old cases to change the text but I'm not sure that's really necessary. Keep in mind that changing the message means editing more than 500 pages. An other option would be to protect the page to ensure people would read the big message, but I don't like the idea. -- lucasbfr ^talk 01:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, of the requests I removed, all were either already transcluded to the main page and had been completed and archived, or had been transcluded and done: We have two ways to see new requests, and we are able to add them to WP:RFCU when we see them. If you look at the revision before the archiving, you see that the only open cases are the ones transcluded from IP check. IP check is already transcluded on WP:RFCU. No information was lost, and all of the cases were seen be a checkuser. --ST47Talk 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon had not been transcluded to the main page. It fell off the map, which is what got me looking for it. I hope that you will double-check to ensure that no other RfCs were lost. —SlamDiego_←T 02:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised to read that more than 500 pages would have to be editted to change that one link; but I don't see why (even if the claim is true) that task could be automated and proceed swiftly. —SlamDiego_←T 02:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the message you see is substed from each case from {{

AWB can easily take care of it), just that it is not something to take lightly. That's why I'd rather tweak the message in /Pending to make people actually read it, instead of editing 500 pages. -- lucasbfr ^talk

08:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a single-purpose account - 9 contributions, all edits to

 ... 05:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinately. Next time, please report vandalism at

WP:AIV; you will generally get a faster response there. Raven4x4x

07:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Violent comment at

Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney)

Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but NoMercyX (

07:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats pretty meh. Just remove the comment per the notice at the top of the talk page and let it be. Viridae^Talk 07:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As per the thread on ╦ 16:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
This thread is the *third* fork of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ethnic cliques ruling AfD?. I found that thread after making this. By all means, lets take your INAPPROPRIATE behavior discussion there.--Alexia Death 13:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FEstophobia&diff=144787972&oldid=144787498 here Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) has sorted AfD votes by nationality. I feel that it is an attempt to belittle certain votes and all in a a rude thing to do. Whats your view on this?--Alexia Death 13:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Such grouping of votes by nationality is not acceptable. Administrators should nip this practice in the bud with a stern warning to the user who tried to do it, so that it does not become established practice. Balcer 13:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I have left a warning on his talk page. He will be blocked if he persists. Crum375 13:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I have no desire to continue the discussion in three or four places simulataneously, but I may well understand that the nationalists should bother that the practice of ethnic feuds on AfD may be brought to an end. I am ready to move the discussion of the nationalist AfD trollfests to the mailing list, because, if we pursue it on one of these noticeboards, it will unevitably be buried in emotional snowballs or hijacked by Korps! Estonia and the Gadu-Gadu-based accounts. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC) You can discuss the issue where you want, but if you do this 'selection' sorting once more, anywhere on this site, you will be blocked. Crum375 14:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC) You are clearly in the minority here. Care to refer to any specific policies? --Ghirla-трёп- 14:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC) WP:DISRUPT for starters. I am sure there are lots more. This is totally unacceptable behavior and will not be tolerated. Crum375 14:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Please quote the specific sentence from WP:VANDAL that defines my edits as vandalism. If you can't, I will welcome your apologies. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Not minority; see WP:POLICY here. Digwuren 14:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Even if the edits are not vandalism, refactoring comments based on nationality is a gross violation of WP:POINT. I would also like this thread be closed (and any relevant comments copied over to the one at AN), so as to prevent it from being fragmented. --soum talk 14:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC) WP:Vandalism#Discussion page vandalism is clearly enumerated. Digwuren 14:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is this user,

P.S. the difference between our versions can be seen on the history page of the articles. With this war going on you should have no problem wiewing the differences, but please note: all I'm saying is that there is no conversing with this man, I'm not saying my version is impeccable, but neither is his, however, this guy can't even converse on the issues. All he can do is constantly revert my hard work.

I have s-protected the entries. See if it helps. Crum375 13:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You have my thanks, I'll try to talk to the guy somehow...

DIREKTOR

I was recently reviewing pages for deletion at

15:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just looked that AfD over. Nathaniel needs a time out so he can review our core policies, and decide if Wikipedia is really where he wants to be a contributor. - Crockspot 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  A few people have explained to him that even if you dislike a topic with your entire mind, body and soul to the extent that you are consumed by both fury and righteous indignation that such a repugnant entity be allowed to cast its foul and maelevolent shadow over both the world and - far far worse - Wikipedia, this doesn't always mean it shouldn't have an article. If that were the case, I would be nominating

  ╦

  16:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• He seems to have been inactive since the AFD was closed... I don't see the need for a block right now. --W.marsh 16:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mark_S seems to be pushing a POV on this article, following the removal of a link he had added to the External Links section by two editors (myself included). He was warned about the dangers of a 3RR violation following three reverts in the space of 24 hours:

• 1st revert: 1 00:44, 14 July 2007
• 2nd revert: 2 01:02, 14 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 3 18:33, 14 July 2007

I opened dialogue on the talk page to raise the issue here. The response was advocation of the removal of many more links in this section of the article. I agreed that they needed to be looked over, and added a link cleanup template to the article here so that editors could discuss the links and reach a consensus on inclusions and exclusions.

.

Before this gets out of hand, and since this user seems unwilling to take a step back to cool off, I hoped an administrator might look in on it. Coldmachine^Talk 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned about the edits I see by Garry Denke (talk · contribs) (who also apparently contributes as 76.182.220.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). He has recently spammed a number of talk pages with fairly well-written pseudoscientific/pseudohistorical religious "theories". By itself, this is a problem but easily dealt with. My bigger concern is that Garry Denke has contributed to and started a variety of semi obscure articles over the last two years (e.g. Seven Spirits of God, Scroll Trench), and made small factual changes to topics like geomagnetic reversal. Some of these contributions appear legitimate, some are transparently false (e.g. magnetic reversals do not occur in less than 39 years), but others are plausible sounding statements that I am unqualified to judge. I worry that he may have inserted a variety of problematic content that was too obscure to notice.

I would appreciate it if others would investigate his edit history and take appropriate action as necessary. Particularly useful would be someone knowledgable about

07:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The last swing of the VGP from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere in the Brunhes-Matuyama geomagnetic reversal took only 38 yr.

<copy of abstract removed. Dragons flight 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)>

Speaking of knowledgeable

One entry found.

knowledgeable

Main Entry: knowl·edge·able

Pronunciation: \ˈnä-lij-ə-bəl\

Function: adjective

Date: 1829

having or showing knowledge or intelligence

— knowl·edge·abil·i·ty \ˌnä-li-jə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun

— knowl·edge·able·ness noun

— knowl·edge·ably \-blē\ adverb

John

Okay, so it's nonsense that some scientist believed in the 1980s. "[A]n analysis of the available sediment records of the four most recent polarity reversals ... yield[s] an average estimate of about 7,000 years for the time it takes for the directional change to occur." (Clement, Science, 2004 [78]). If one only cares about the time it takes to go from slightly S oriented to slightly N, then obviously the time required is neglible because you catch it just on the transition, but that is not at all the same as asking how long the reversal takes as the pole slides through a 180 degree arc. Dragons flight 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oy, a bit high brow for Clement. Dipole flip is three (3) days. The whole arc; degrees / minutes / seconds. Homo erectus is the discoverer. The discovery date;

Middle Pleistocene. In the beginning top "Ionian" Stage. Here is the discoverer's "Photo". "So easy a Caveman can do it". Go ahead and laugh, whatever. Watch one, then you correct Wiki. I know that you dislike ancestors. However; give the founder full credit! Nobel Peace Prize for Homo erectus! Garry Denke 19:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC), User:Garry Denke, User talk:Garry Denke

Garry Denke 14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Garry, you're not helping your cause out by using the Chewbacca defense. You're only proving Dragons flight correct. The Evil Spartan 19:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dragons flight Chewbacca (Trojan horse) Defense employs non-dipole technical jargon, vs., Earth's dipole "so easy a Caveman can do it" Homo erectus eyewitness account, The Evil Spartan. Just thought you'd like to know you've buried Dragons flight with your link. John

Hey Dad, how do you spell Stonehenge? John

Studyhedge. Universal Magnetic Field. Garry Denke 23:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A website - http://www.fonejacker.tv/Kayvan_Novak.shtml - appears to have copied a Wikipedia article and placed their own copyright tag on the page. I wasn't sure of where to report this so I guessed this would be the best place. The article is Kayvan Novak, see also the discussion at Talk:Kayvan Novak. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Normally, the procedure is to list it at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, and to contact the website to ask them to remove the content. I'd do it but it's probably best if one of the editors involved in the article takes care of it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I and another editor contacted the website and looking at the page now, http://www.fonejacker.tv/Kayvan_Novak.shtml, they have removed the copyright logo and give credit to Wikipedia and IMBD now. — Moe ε 19:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was listed on 4th July and procedurally correctly relisted as 4th nomination. (the 3rd nomination (from 2006) now sits on the 4th July 2007 list of archived Afds). I have been struggling to get the original nominator to relist it, he seems unwilling to and I do no want the Afd to close with no consensus so that it can raised again on afd. It is a waste of everybodies time. I have even told the nominator that I am willing to change my comment to delete if it will push consensus one way or another.

I feel that the Afd hidden from scrutiny, not listed and still open after 11 days is abuse of process.

any suggestions? Mike33 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note this is not an invitation to comment at the afd. When the afd is correctly relisted or you comment using the article afd notice, that is good faith. Commenting at the afd using this link isn't welcomed. Mike33 03:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone can comment on AFD until it's finally closed. At any rate, AFDs are normally only relisted due to lack of participation... this one is eligible to be closed now. --W.marsh 03:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Something's weird here... was this AFD ever properly listed? The version listed on 7/04/2007 was the third nom (closed by me, coincidently). If the fourth nom was never listed on an AFD day log, it is not fully valid. Sorry if I misread your initial post. --W.marsh 03:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Offhand, I would suggest closing AFD4 as invalid and relisting, and notifying everyone who participated in AFD4 of what happened and link to AFD5. Mike33 is right, linking to it only from the article can give a skewed consensus. --W.marsh 03:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've relisted the Afd. Just a reminder to editors who do rename Afds to ensure that you also update the Afd log to take note of the rename. There is nothing more frustrating that being unaware that you are involved in an orphaned afd. Mike33 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it needs further mass debating? --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The AFD is now closed. There was a complete 11 days to gather consensus, which was achieved. If anyone is dissatisfied with the result, they may seek review at

) 18:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• It was never properly listed so the consensus is invalid. --W.marsh 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Since about 23:00 this AFD has been flooded with Keep !votes by new users with no previous contributions, as if it was publicized on a blog or mailing list, with many of them unidentified. I saw at least one AFD semiprotected not that long ago. Is there a way to at least task a bot with identifying the unsigned contributions? It is just about impossible to keep up with the flood by searching the history file to identify them as spas. Thanks. Edison 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Great God in a bottle. I can't even find the original deletion reason in that utter mess - oh, wait, there it is, just below the SPA tag. Might I suggest that it should be thrown out and restarted, this time semiprotected? I can't see anyone digging through there to find the signal in the noise... Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be closed today? —Kurykh 03:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like, yeah, in a few hours. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV in five... four... three.... Tony Fox (arf!) review?

05:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this edit to the AfD to be very troublesome. Can we block this clown gentleman? Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Just as a quick note, I do not think it really appropriate to call that editor a "clown." Best, --

Tally-ho!

04:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The nonsense on that AfD frustrated me. I probably shouldn't have called the editor a clown. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who nakes threats like that should be immediately blocked. Corvus cornix 20:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In the edit which Pablo cited above by Atari2600a, [79], Atari2600a says "Wikipedia can handle a Dynamic Denial of Service (or 'DDoS') attack from a single hacker, but imagine tens, hundreds, possibly thousands of hackers DDoSing Wikipedia at once. This can spell nothing good. Just leave the article up." Does this sound to any one else like a threat? Or just a user expressing concern that "something bad" might happen to Wikipedia if we deleted a particular article? Atari2600a had 6 sensible edits before this AFD, dating back to last November. I'm not sure whether the flurry of Keep !votes toward the end was an effort by one user with a variety of hijacked computer accounts, or the result of a posting somewhere asking people to come to Wikipedia and "save" the article about the movie. Typically they would sign the Keep vote with their first name and their location, in a very consistent pattern, without having created a Wikipedia logon, and without using four tildes. This consistent pattern suggests it is either the work of one person, or that someone told readers somewhere to click on a link to the AFD, then add a Keep vote and sign with their name and city. In most cases, when I tracked down the IP addresses in the history file and checked them with Whois, the city matched the claimed city, such as "Henry W in Boston, but that same IP address was used to post a vote by "Scott in Wisconsin" "Bryan in California" was indeed from California, and added 2 keep votes. "Marcel Netherlands" was from there. "Fornequiem Canada" was from there. "Steve from Ontario" and "Eckostream from Quebec" were from where claimed. These votes were still of an unusual and distinctive pattern. Edison 19:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• The AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (4th nomination) has been closed, but at its start instead of the verdict "keep" or "delete" is a short vulgar poem. Its history says that this is not the result of an edit after the AfD was closed. Anthony Appleyard 09:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced this colorful poem with a proper close.[80] Folks, please remember that this is supposed to be a respectable academic enterprise.Proabivouac 09:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No it's not, it's supposed to be a good-faith attempt at a reasonably serious encyclopaedia. Have we lost all sense of humour? I'd have clarified it, perhaps, but I'd certainly have left the quote in For Great Justice. Maybe that's because I'm old enough to instinctively respond "We are Devo!" when asked "Are we not men?" but it's a bit harsh to slap the guy for it. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The AFD was really not valid, it was only listed at AFD for a few hours (see above thread on this AFD). It needs to be re-opened and allowed to run the full 5 days, I have left a note with the closing admin. --W.marsh 09:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's been listed since the 4th, then reposted for consensus. Then it seems to have snowballed to a delete. --Hemlock Martinis 09:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read above as I requested... it was not listed on any AFD page until a few hours before it was closed, so only people who had the article watchlisted would see the AFD. --W.marsh 09:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was listed here, although incorrectly (as 3rd nomination instead of fourth), on July 4.--Atlan (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Which means the 4th was not listed. --W.marsh 14:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The 4th got listed as the 3rd. Everyone was able to see it listed as such from the 4th of July. I don't think a miscount of which nomination it was, makes the whole Afd null and void.--Atlan (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The 4th never appeared on the AFD page... the 3rd did, which was long since closed... people just looked past it as some weird error. it was also not linked to by AFD moniters. It was simply an invalid listing. Listing some random past version of an AFD is not a substitute for listing the current AFD. --W.marsh 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I wasn't aware of that.--Atlan (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

See the top of his userpage. I assume it's a protest of fair use policies, just my guess. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I was leaving the user a talkpage note about this, and by the time I had finished, Ryulong had already blocked him. Newyorkbrad 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone should remove that "licensing withdrawn" message. He can't withdraw the license on his edits made under GDFL and any claim to the contrary is confusing and disruptive.--Atlan (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Cjmarsicano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contacted me on my user talk page stating that he no longer contributes under a license that is compatible with the Wikimedia Foundation (CC-NC-ND 3.0) which is blatantly stated on his userpage. In a lack of what to do in this situation (and the fact that he editted following his withdrawal of the GFDL from all of his contributions), I have currently blocked him indefinitely. This user has been on Wikipedia longer than I have, and I know that this is because of the fair use policies and how it forbids him from adding nonfree images of Hello! Project members as they are living individuals. But what should really be done here (my indefblock lifted, or does he go the way of Alex756 (talk · contribs))?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

See thread immediately above. I was going to give him a little time to respond to my note before blocking. But given that you've blocked, we'll see if he posts an unblock request and what he might say in it. Newyorkbrad 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like ParthianShotPioneer-12, who was

20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears this has been resolved. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this resolved? His Talk page still says This user affirms and believes that the First Amendment supersedes the Wikimedia Foundation's ill-advised policy on so-called "non-free images" and that the use of these same so-called "non-free images" is protected by the Fair Use Clause of the US Copyright Act of 1976.. In other words, he seems to feel that he has a legal right to post whatever he wants, regardless of whether his postings follow Wikipedia policy. US law has no bearing on Wikipedia policy. Corvus cornix 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've agreed to with Ruylong to multi-license under GDFL and a CC license within Wiki's grounds to be determined later by me. As for the talk page notice, I still maintain my right to publicly state my views on what I see as a heavily flawed policy regarding such imagery. CJ Marsicano 20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You do understand that this is a privately-owned website, and as such, US law has zero meaning here. right? US copyright law has as little meaning on Wikipedia as the First Amendment does. Wikipedia makes its own policies. Its policies may be more restrictive than US copyright law, and that is the case here. And you just said above, that the copyright you will follow is to be determined by you. No, it is to be determined by Wikipedia, or else you need to edit elsewhere. Corvus cornix 20:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you have misread or misinterpreted what I said. Many Wikiusers have multi-licensed their contributions before, I have not yet decided on what the full scope for my contributions will be. --Ceej 20:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, U.S. law does have some bearing on our policies, but we reserve the right to make our policies a superset of the law, and to formulate them in such a way that minimizes legal exposure. --Iamunknown 20:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the Fair Use Clause of the US Copyright Act would more than adequately protect Wikipedia against "legal exposure" (a term George Carlin would no doubt have a ball with: "Legal exposure? That sounds like you could whip your dick out in public but not wave it at someone!"). Ryulong, at my request, provided me with a link to the resolution in question... oi vey, what a mistake those guys made! --CJ Marsicano 20:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you "feel" that, but you have yet to show that your interpretation abides by Wikipedia policy. Until such a time, you should take down your "feeling" from your Talk page. Corvus cornix 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's where I draw the line. The statement on my Talk page will remain. Cjmarsicano 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you feel (or think), the Board has determined that a stricter interpretation of the Fair Use parts of US Copyright Law is what is best for the Foundation. As Wikipedia is owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, that stricter interpretation applies here, too. You aren't the one who has the potential to be sued for improper fair use. And as others have pointed out, the Bill of Rights (of which the First Amendment is a part) does not apply to a privately owned site. The Bill of Rights only applies to the government. Period. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User repeatedly reverting content without explanation or discussion. Already blocked twice for disruption.

19:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Um... I only saw wikilinking and adding uppercase to proper nouns. Can you provide diffs for reverts? LessHeard vanU 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The wikilinks are of items already linked, hence

Just64helpin

22:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left a more detailed request to desist on the talkpage. As this is an ip it cannot be certain that the historical non Godzilla edits were this particular individual. If the complained edits continues after the warnings/requests then perhaps a short block to get the editors attention might be in order. LessHeard vanU 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Per policy, users are not allowed to have images in their signatures because it increases the load on the servers.

) 19:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'll make any arguments that a non-admin won't be able to make, but I'll talk with Cunado19. Sancho 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As Cunado19 has explicitly pointed out to you, it's not a policy, it's a guideline. And if you'd bothered to read his talk page you'd have found several previous discussions of the issue, in which he's already explained at length why he thinks the rationale for the guideline doesn't apply in this case. That's his right. If you disagree, feel free to address his argument, on his talk page. Zsero 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Was that a reply to me or to Matt57? Sancho 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are the "rights" to do anything on Wikipedia elucidated? So far as I know, there are only two rights - fork or leave. Corvus cornix 20:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin protect this page, per more vandalism from IP's, including this edit. Much appreciated. Davnel03 20:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected by Evilclown93. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The article for Lyriel (band) is blatant advertising and does not demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion. The page's creator, Eclipica, has repeatedly deleted the tags that identify it as such. C1k3 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If someone is removing the speedy tags, do a regular nomination for deletion. If they keep removing those tags, then further steps can be taken. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You've replaced the Db tag with a prod tag, which doesn't do any good. The creator of an article may not remove a db tag, but they are perfectly within their rights to remove a prod tag. You should warn them about removing db tags and after four warnings, take it to

WP:AIV. Corvus cornix

21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, you should have used {{

db-spam}}. I've placed the proper tag. --Edokter (Talk

) 22:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Eclipica (talk · contribs) has now twice removed the db-band tag. Since his only contributions are to Lyriel (band) and apparently does not want to play by the rules, I suggest a short block. --Edokter (Talk) 22:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the {{

AfD. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe}

22:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed does not mean invalid. There was not a shred of an assertion of notability, and it was a blatant CSDG11. Deleted.

^{Denny Crane.}

22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of user namespace?

Resolved

 – pages deleted, users warned

User:Re3fx50 and User:Ashley0030 appear to have created usernames in Wikipedia solely to post supposed sexual solicitations (and phone numbers) on eachother's pages. Don't know if this violates any one policy, but it's certainly a misuse of Wikipedia that's fraught with ethical and legal issues. - Special-T 22:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Both deleted. Wikipedia is not free webhosting. They were clearly not here for the encyclopedia. Not blocked, but I suspect they won't come back anyway. Mak (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The good news is that 1800-IMA HOTTIE WITH A BODY!!!!!! is probably not a real phone number. :) That's school like vandalism. I warned them both, please tell me if they continue, but I dont see a good enough reason to block them at the moment. ---- lucasbfr ^talk 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and action. - Special-T 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 0

Perhaps a word with their mentor

User:G1ggy might help? LessHeard vanU

22:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 3 hours to cool off. My rationale for doing so is that he is editing in a distruptive manner, and basically, he just needs to cool off. Клоун 22:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

63.227.40.66 (talk · contribs)'s only contributions are adding the same link to several pages. I've cleaned them all out. Can someone take care of the spammer? --Edokter (Talk) 22:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to place a warning such as {{

spam}} yourself as an admin is not needed for that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe}

23:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought spammer IPs were usually soft-blocked. --Edokter (Talk) 23:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone deserves to be warned first as they may not be aware of the specific policies or guidelines prohibiting their behavior. The IP hasn't done anything since being warned, so unless they continue, there's no reason to block the IP. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone has, I think, vandalized this page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush

I will copy/paste so you can see what I mean:

"George H. W. Bush, U.S. President 1989–1993, his First Lady a shit load of fathers ago from your moms dad, but you get the picture"

would someone mind fixing this please? Thanks!

Fixed. For future reference, see Help:Reverting -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jerpeegordon (talk · contribs · block log) impersonated an admin ([81],[82]) and is most likely another sock puppet of Kirbytime. He's trolling as usual and playing with Wikipedia. All his other edits are strange blank edits with no input. Could someone block this user as well? thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why, whats wrong with that? It wasnt random. This editor created his account at the time of Kirby's CU report and impersonated an admin. Its reasonable to assume that its Kirby again.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't check contribs. Anyway, it's dealt with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

69.177.242.99 went to a dozen comic character talk pages, removed the deb ates about merging alternate forms of characters, and relocated them to the WP:COMIC discussion on the same, three weeks after his move to merge ALL alternates ended in a no consensus. It looks like he's trying to shore up support for his opinion, but at the same time he's taking the choices out of the hands of the editors of those pages, which is the opposite of the apparent lack of consensus on the WP page, where editors instead called for figuring out standards for such merges and so on. This seems like some sort of unethical behavior but maybe there's a policy I don't know about allowing this? ThuranX 06:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This user has now gone beyond pushing it too far. He was already warned for, after asking a reasonable question at Talk:George W. Bush, taking it to the level of trolling (blanking other's comments, calling Americans idiots, etc.). Now it's cemented on his talk page (calling, for example, me a dick). At risk of sounding rude, is this user just young, is he dense, or is he trolling? The Evil Spartan 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, he is now warned. LessHeard vanU 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

...and blocked for 24hours. LessHeard vanU 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

...and now protected the page to stop Billzilla from removing blocknotice. LessHeard vanU 22:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the heading as User:Bishzilla and I was wondering what on earth she was doing in a content dispute. Viridae^Talk 01:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You could have warned me before I clicked Bishzilla's name to see who you were talking about!! Phew (or should that be "aaaiieeeeeeee!!!"?)! ;~) LessHeard vanU 12:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I did too, Viridae - I cannot imagine what kind of dispute 'Zilla could have been involved in (well, that left anyone un-crispied enough to post here, anyway!) KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

On my talk page,

19:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a request, not a demand, and seems to have been asked in light of claims on your part. If you're using your academic credentials to bolster your arguments, it's likely people want to verify your credentials. KP Botany 19:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you try a simple 'no'? It seems a reasonable request. If you make any claim on Wikipedia, you should expect to be asked to back it up with some evidence. It's when they tell you what your identity is that you have problems. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PS He also appears to have asked this after you challenged his assertion of someone else's credentials.[83] In other words, you told him that he failed to supply evidence to support his claim of someone else's credentials, now he has asked you for yours. "You claimed that Rabounski is a "professor of mathematics", yet this does not appear to be the case. You have supplied no evidence to support your claim." I think this is a minor request on the part of one user to ask another for credentials. IMO a simple decline would probably be more than enough, Mathsci. KP Botany 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems zzuuzz has the same idea. KP Botany 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Gee, could it possibly bring Wikipedia into disrepute if an editor claimed to have all sorts of academic degrees or professional accreditation or be a college faculty member when arguing from authority in editing disputes? Edison 20:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

An administrator has confirmed on my talk page that demanding or requesting my identity is contrary to WP policy. How could I possibly have made my recent mathematical edits without being a professional pure mathematician? Mathsci 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that that is the question, Mathsci, how could you have made them without being a professional pure mathematician. And the administrator is in the wrong, as no demand for identify has been made. KP Botany 20:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a very informed remark. Please look at the article on Affiliated operator and Von Neumann algebra before making further comments. --Mathsci 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Both articles need serious work to their introductory sections. KP Botany 20:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you find a mathematical error? --Mathsci 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, and I haven't looked for one. What I found was an error in introducing the concepts to a general audience. This can be done, and should be done for articles in a general encyclopedia. Please look at

WP:MOS for ideas. If you rewrite the introductions for a general audience, post a request on my user talk page, and I will review them. KP Botany

20:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

These are topics which are only covered in advanced postgraduate courses. I would not expect anybody without a knowledge of spectral theory for unbounded operators even to have a motivation for looking at the article on affiliated operators. Why do you think you could contribute to an article at this level? Why do you think all mathematics articles should be written for a general audience? --Mathsci 22:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unindent -- This appears to be rather about your personal desire to show you know more about math than other people, than it is about math articles on Wikipedia. This is an unusual tactic for a mathematician, one I'm unused to encountering. Advanced postgraduate courses? Sorry, general prerequisites would be Linear Algebra and a good Probability course--and you know this, or you're not a mathematician. But I'll promise to try not to solve anything with compact operators, while you're discussing unbounded operators, showing my mathematical idiocy any more than I already have--good grief. (Don't worry for the mathematically less genius, I didn't say anything, I just guessed at some random words and popped them down--wouldn't know a differential from a split dual salt shaker if I were paid to know.) KP Botany 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This remark is completely uninformed. Look for example at the 250 or so articles in the category algebraic geometry. Almost all of them are at a postgraduate level. A large number of wikipedia mathematics articles, probably the majority, constitute a sort of mathematical encyclopedia. There are several of these reference works in existence in print and the wikipedia is providing its own valuable version. These articles are usually written by practising mathematicians. Some might find this revelation surprising, but that is no excuse to attack the messenger. --Mathsci 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a scientific journal for a small group of experts? LessHeard vanU

23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately mathematics on the wikipedia, as in real life, has a rather complex hierarchic structure. That is why for example the articles on

Morse Theory or Donaldson theory assume some prior knowledge. If you don't like them, you can always try to improve them or vote for their deletion.--Mathsci

23:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That argument would only make sense if people who are not professional mathemeticians invariably make mistakes, which is not true. -Amarkov moo! 20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that what you say is true. People with no mathematical training would almost invariably make mistakes when editing articles on higher mathematics. If they did not understand the particular piece of higher mathematics, they normally wouldn't have a clue about what they were writing. They might not make mistakes if they were simply copying and pasting something written by somebody else. --Mathsci 00:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Appeals to authority are discouraged (with prejudice) at Wikipedia, for exactly the reasons indicated above; certification of identity is not possible. Professional mathematicians (or any other expert or professional) should have access to the reliable sources that can be used in the article to support whatever position they are maintaining on the talkpage. If it cannot be cited then it cannot be in the article. LessHeard vanU 22:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that all statements in wikipedia articles should have verifiable sources, e.g. biographies of living people. When a user such as Georgiev makes an elementary error in mathematics on a talk page, such as confusing

minimum, all that can be done is for WP editors to point this out and hope that he/she understands. If it is a typical calculus error made by freshmen, that is unfortunately what it is. It is quite unfair to confuse such a statement with an "appeal to authority". --Mathsci

23:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I considered

How could I possibly have made my recent mathematical edits without being a professional pure mathematician?

to be an appeal to authority, albeit in good faith. Simply, it is an unanswerable statement when there is no ability to verify editors credentials (see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification detailing why this did not/cannot happen) on Wikipedia. It is best to stick with the strengths of your argument - and the good faith assumption that folks can understand it - than refer to qualifications that cannot be easily checked. LessHeard vanU 23:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI I did in fact reveal my real-life identity by private email to CH in my first talk archive (September 2006). He did advise me there that more detail should be provided on my user page to avoid exactly the kind of confusion that has arisen here. Apart from quoting interchanges like this with other WP editors or administrators, I see no other way of confirming the statement on my user page while retaining my anonymity. --Mathsci 23:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This indef blocked editor (he may have been community banned, I'm not sure) has been using socks, please see the checkuser report. Would someone please block these socks? Arrow740 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Per the results of these latest CU results, and Kirbytime's failure to heed the suggestions of this thread which resulted in an indefinite block, per Jpgordon's Kirbytime's own suggestion, it may be appropriate to affirm a community ban. Additionally, sockpuppets User:Fâtimâh bint Fulâni and User:Xveolgvzr have not yet been blocked.Proabivouac 23:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've permablocked Fâtimâh bint Fulâni and Xveolgvzr. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I went to help an editor asking at the help desk about "How do I post an article to wikipedia?" Upon checking out his page I found this[84]. Which may be a problem. I have to leave right away, so I can not tend to this as I would like, and trust that some bright spark amongst you would take up the gauntlet, so to speak. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked both the userpage and the usertalk page. Both should be speedily deleted. -Jmh123 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. IrishGuy ^talk 00:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Fethroesforia uploaded several images going back several months with comments like "Picture taken by me" and tagged them cc-by-sa2.5. Now, the user is requesting that they be speedily deleted because: "This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement of picture taker has claimed legal action after i accidentally uploaded thinking i could upload his picture as mine, and no assertion of permission has been made." That's quite an accident. Should we go through and delete all of the user's "self-made" images on the theory that we cannot trust the user's claims? Should the user be blocked? Is anyone else suspicious that the account may have been compromised? There's something odd here. -- But|seriously|folks  01:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't believe those would be the actions of a compromised account, so he probably shouldn't be blocked. To be safe, I think that speedy deleting any images he has tagged as this incident, not all of the images he ever uploaded, should be deleted and restored if permission is granted. — Moe ε 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You might try asking the user if anything else he uploaded as "his" might have mistakenly not been taken by him. Shell ^babelfish 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm particularly concerned about Image:Berlin Wall Plaque.jpg, which has already been copied to Commons, but he seems to be dealing with them there. There's a little more explanation at his Commons talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I asked him, he answered, and I'm satisfied now that he hasn't left us with any problematic images. I skimmed through his upload log and it looks like all the others are album covers and logos. The story about his father threatening litigation still doesn't sit right, and I'm not happy with his repeated statements here and at commons that he took the photos himself, but as long as the images are gone, I guess it's not worth thinking about. -- But|seriously|folks  08:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

see Mmbabies and TV station articles (combined with older discussion)

I've combined this heading with that of the

Nate

08:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The article Operation Storm was first edited by User:Hvarako ^{(talk•contribs)} on the 13th by adding balant non-sourced POV attack wording [85] and then moving the page to "Oluja Genocide". The changes were reverted, following which he reverted back to his version no less then 5 times in the last three days. [86] I fear this will just continue. He was warned by User:ChrisO on his talk pages to read about NPOV, to no effect. ---The Spanish Inquisitor 06:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, during the reverting, he also violeted the 3RR rule on the 13th. ---The Spanish Inquisitor 09:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have twice tried to perform a selective deletion of a single revision within Hangover that contains a phone number in its edit comment, without success. Can someone else try this, and tell me if they can make it work? -- Karada 09:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You've done it just fine. You've left your revert in, but that particular revision is now deleted. --Deskana (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I find that I have to make a null edit to the page (ie. add a space here, remove a space there) for the edit history of an article I've "history-cleansed" to be updated for me. Maybe that was the problem? Daniel 09:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Even after a purge? That usually works for me (remember a purge can be done by going to edit the page and then changing action=edit to action=purge, or many people have it as a tab thanks to custom monobook.js code) ++Lar: t/c 11:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried a purge, and it made no difference. Could database server lag have been the problem? -- Karada 12:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This editor claims on his userpage to be an experienced editor on the Farsi WP. In recent days he has four times moved 2006 Lebanon War and although I twice left warnings on his Talk, he has not responded, nor left any messages anywhere. I hope this is just a misunderstanding, but the most recent move ended with another user cutting and pasting, and if this keeps up, the disruption will only get worse. I've contacted a Farsi-speaking user to try to sort things out, and I've move protection for the interim. Any ideas? Tewfik^Talk 09:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's probably not a fantastic thing to be happening, given the current situation of the naming dispute. Daniel 09:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that Roaringbug9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked. Whilst not particularly offensive, the majority of postings from that user id have been puerile.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.12.224 (talk • contribs)

Blocked indefinitely, obvious

WP:AIV in the future.-Wafulz

14:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The above article has been drastically edited by 62.49.39.98 (talk · contribs) without NPOV. This user is clearly supporting OpenDocument. He has added many points to "Shortcomings of Office Open XML" section without any reference, and removed some points from "Shortcomings of OpenDocument" saying "I do not believe this is true[92]" and asking for "discuss first - links." (He has never participated in discussion.)

This user has been warned by Kirrages (talk · contribs) on 2007-05-30 for not following core policies and his edits on the same article have been reverted by many users. I'm concerned that this user's behaviour is likely to extend to a revert war. eDenE 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ew. AFD'd. Will ^(talk) 16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please put

16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. Jfwambaugh 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

17:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked for 31 hours. Please review as necessary. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

17:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This user has taken up a contentious stylistic campaign that has caused much disruption in the past: indisciminately stripping articles of all year-alone datelinks, using bot-like methods to run through large numbers of articles at high speed. The same thing has been done in the past by

00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in it myself. What difference does it make? These links are not of any real use anyway. --John 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Not policy nor consensus. Corvus cornix 01:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no policy or consensus either way, right? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have left him a stern final warning. Please report further activity of this type here. --Richard 01:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What policy is he violating? The BC/BCE thing was decided by the ArbCom, that no one should change one to the other. But there's been no such decision here, has there? Or am I missing something? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Why would he get a "stern final warning" for something like this? --John 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

there is no general consensus that the habit of linking separate years (that are date indications that only consist of a year) should be abandoned. Corvus cornix

02:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. There's no general consensus either way. So I shouldn't threaten to block people for linking years, and I also shouldn't threaten to block people for de-linking them. At least, that's how I read it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I admit that this is an ambiguous situation. I researched it before I left the warning. I researched it again quickly and revisited my thinking after reading Quadel's comment.

I think we all understand that there is no consensus to link or de-link years.

clearly indicates that it is permissible to link years (else why would they show how to do it?).

but that, if someone else objects, then you should discuss and develop a consensus.

Someone (User:Lonewolf BC) has objected to Lightmouse's de-linking and asked him to stop pending formation of a consensus. Ignoring the opinions of others and editing unilaterally in the face of opposition is disruptive.

According to the BRD model, it would have been permissible to revert Lightmouse's edits. However, that probably would have been more confrontational than necessary.

I don't think any admin relishes the idea of having to go through each of Lightmouse's edits and rolling them back if the consensus were to decide against his de-linking campaign.

Blocks are meant to be preventative; not punitive. The purpose of a block in this case would be to limit the de-linking until the issue can be discussed in an appropriate forum.

Discussion and consensus are crucial to working in a collaborative community.

--Richard 03:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Applaudere. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said Richard. However, I think the best would be to help coach Lightmouse towards making more productive edits, rather than talking about blocks for what seem to me, from a very cursory sampling, to be more good than bad edits; edits with which I too see certain problems, but which are undoubtedly well-intentioned. Discussion and consensus are vital here and I'm disappointed at how little attempt at dialogue was made with Lightmouse about his edits before threatening him with a block and reporting him here. Experience has shown repeatedly that the community is not able to attain a consensus either for or against linking standalone years, and that there are editors on both "sides" who passionately believe they should or shouldn't be linked. I should say that I often delink standalone years as part of a copyedit myself. Perhaps the solution to this issue would lie in discussing with Lightmouse on an individual basis the merits of his edits. If there is a concern that he edits somewhat robotically, then perhaps he could be restricted to a certain speed of editing. Finally I'd say, with all respect to everybody involved in this, it really doesn't seem worth anybody falling out over, to me. --John 06:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left the editor a message inviting some coaching. Wikignoming is not inherently bad, you know, and this energy to make formatting changes could surely be tapped rather than thwarted. We'll see if they want to work with me. --John 00:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I agree with what you wrote. In my defense, I admit that I was editing under time pressure yesterday and reacting to an existing series of exchanges between LonewolfBC and Lightmouse. I was simply trying to reinforce what LonewolfBC was saying. Comparing LonewolfBC's exchange with Lightmouse against your exchange with him shows that there is indeed a "kinder, gentler" way to communicate. It is a lesson for me to learn. --Richard 08:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's my kinder and gentler approach. --Richard 09:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Applaudere2. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, Hmains lately has been "testing these waters" again, with edits such as this one, made under the edit-summary "copyedit".
I'm quite disappointed that anyone would suggest that this datelink-stripping is okay on the suppositious grounds that the links are not useful. The whole point is that there is no consenus about the worth of the links, and that in the lack of such consensus it is not right to go burning through articles in a bot-like manner, indiscriminately nuking every year-alone date-link. An equally speedy and thoughtless campaign of adding such links would be just as bad. I'm also disappointed at legalistic suggestions that some formal ruling is needed before preventative action may be taken against this. Surely a commonsense application of principles is enough, and if not then how is it that Bobblewik was repeatedly blocked for his date-link stripping? For all I know there has even been a ruling, but I don't think it ought matter whether there has or has not.
With regard to approaches to Lightmouse, and the fittingness of mine or Richard's, one must read through his talk-page's history to judge that well. Complaints about the date-link stripping have been continual, and Editore99/Lightmouse had "blown off" every one before mine, in one way or another. The same has been generally true of other complaints he has gotten. When entreaties have already failed, warnings are in order (followed by enforcement, if the warnings are not heeded). If Lightmouse has seemed more receptive to John's "kinder and gentler" approach, that might well have to do with his being under threat of a block. That said, I wholly agree that Lightmouse is doing plenty of good work and that this energy ought be "tapped rather than thwarted".
-- Lonewolf BC 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Hmains' edit except maybe that the edit summary is less than wholly accurate. I do have a problem with this edit you made with the edit summary " rv illicit datelink-stripping", which looks rather

WP:POINTy to me. I'm also not sure if it is helpful to bring together these two editors whose only common factor is that they delink date fragments. So do I and many other users. If you ever see any user "burning through articles in a bot-like manner, indiscriminately nuking every year-alone date-link", and you believe it matters, feel free to come back here and raise it again (though preferably after you have made a proper effort to establish dialogue with the user). I see no evidence of this in the edits of Hmains. --John

17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If his past behavior is any guide, it will only be a matter of time before Mr. Mains returns to "burning through articles in a bot-like manner, indiscriminately nuking every year-alone date-link", unless it is made clear to him that this is no more acceptable than it has been in the past. He generally has begun his rounds of this activity tentatively, but soon throttled up to spending all or substantial portions of editing-days making such edits. The issue is identical to that with Lightmouse -- indeed, the pattern of editing behavior and of interaction with other editors is eerily alike -- so this seems like the sensible place to raise it. The context is all here. I would not put anyone in the same category who delinks year-alone dates merely in the course of judiciously editing articles. -- Lonewolf BC 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly deleted cited material over and over from the

14:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a tough one. Clearly a content dispute. That being said, nothing rankles me more than one hair-brained editors accuse other editors of "vandalism", as if we can't tell the difference.

A spade is a... But seriously, can't you guys work this out on the talk page? The Evil Spartan

20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A user suggested consensus, but that's not doing any good since he keeps doing the reverting, the "he's a sockpuppet", and the "libel" and "vandalism" claims. And reading all this other stuff below about me....if I'm a "sock" then why did I say "I welcome an Admin to check my IP and see that this claim is garbage"? Now I'm a "sock", an "SPA", a "SPA sock", an "Anti-Merkey SPA", a "SCOX troll", a "Freedman who should be banned", AND "JohnC1"?! It would be easy to just look at the page history or talk page and see what I contributed that warrants speculation and to see Merkey's actions with not only me but other users. This is exactly why I would like an Admin to straighten this out and to see that Merkey is causing disruption in the Freedmen piece and unwarranted harassment. Stormshadows00 21:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr Merkey has a habit of calling anyone who disagrees with him a troll, sockpuppet, etc etc. See SCOX Issues User:Kebron here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive269 as well as User:Stormshadows00 here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive270 He has been banned from Wikipedia twice before for EXACTLY what he is doing now. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users&oldid=74046215 reverting edits that are CITED and claiming that HIS POV edits can remain. --Kebron 22:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm…[114], [115]…Proabivouac 22:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please... continue to make vague accusations all you want. The truth remains... Mr Merkey makes wild POV changes to articles. I and others revert them and are accused without proof trolling, of being sockpuppets of this user or that. I have asked over and over if there was anything wrong with my edits and the only thing wrong was that I was editing articles that Jeff Merkey edited. --Kebron 23:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And the truth remains that anti-Merkey SPAs continue to troll this noticeboard.Proabivouac 23:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. Is there any evidence to call Stormshadows00 an 'anti-Merkey SPA'? SPA yes, but the edit history seems to consist of good-faith edits to a single article, and a resulting conflict with Merkey's rather vexatious editing practices.

WP:AGF if nothing else. --Aim Here

09:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that AGF is exactly what the anti-Merkey SPAs have very consciously abused. We could have one hundred and one anti-Merkey only SPAs here and each would assure us from the bottom of their keyboards that they have no idea what we're talking about, while we would be required by the quaint tenets of our religion to overlook the obvious. Merkey can be a problematic editor, but how often does that result in posts to ANI by relatively new editors? Where Merkey is concerned, it happens all the time.

Stormshadows is an SPA. Maybe the quick post to ANI which is characteristic of anti-Merkey trolls is coincidence. Okay, but you can't get around this. That's not just an SPA, but an anti-Merkey-only SPA, and one who's been allowed to contribute for several years now.Proabivouac 10:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty unlikely that this is anyone's forty first edit.Proabivouac 10:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that a few days previously, Merkey had used the same forum to complain about Stormshadows00, so, newbie or not, this forum had already been brought to Stormshadow's attention as the appropriate forum to complain about other editors. In any case, not even Merkey claims that Stormshadows00 is an anti-Merkey troll - that's your invention. Merkey is accusing Stormshadows00 of being John Cornsilks, who is not a SCOX user or troll, but a Cherokee that Jeff has clashed with on Cornsilk's message board, and he was trying to leverage that accusation against Stormshadows00 in this content dispute (since John Cornsilks' account was blocked from WP, for non-Merkey related reasons). Please keep up. When you're seeing anti-Merkey trolls that not even Jeff sees, then I suggest you reevaluate your methods.--Aim Here 12:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that Stormshadows00 was an anti-Merkey account, but an SPA and not a new account. Which is fine, but suspicious. What is far beyond suspicious are the contributions of the other editor who has commented above, which admit only one common denominator.Proabivouac 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm, you made one reference to 'Anti-Merkey SPAs' plural in this thread (after pointing at the user contribs of only two editors, one of which was Stormshadows00), and then a reference to him as an SPA doing something 'which is characteristic of anti-Merkey trolls'. Forgive me for not overlooking the obvious but what you wanted to imply was fairly clear and warranted refuting with facts. --Aim Here 22:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved user (I had never even heard of Mr. Merkey before, let alone edited anything related to Native Americans) I find Mr. Merkey's behavior troubling in this instance. When confronted with a user that claimed to be new, he not only reverted him several times, but would not initially answer on the article talk page, other than to accuse

)

I think Proabivouac is, in good faith, trying to thwart the announced intentions of certain users on the Yahoo! SCOX message board to come over here to Wikipedia and harass Merkey. Naturally, he's therefore suspicious of anyone who (a) has a short edit history, and (b) engages in conflict with Merkey. However, Merkey's editing behavior is so chronically problematic that nearly all editors who encounter him, newbie or veteran, become embroiled in some sort of conflict with him, even if they try to give him the utmost benefit of the doubt. So, while a new account that has rapidly clashed with Merkey could be a SCOX troll, the likelihood that it's not is great enough to mandate

/ 13:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see at least three SCOX trolls listed above. I think this Stormshadows account is an SPA sock and these others accounts are SCOX trolls here to revert. I need to be sysoped so I can deal with them since they seem to still be here. Perhaps Jimbo will sysop me for 24 hours to clean up this mess. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

All due respect, I think that's a very bad idea. You're directly involved, and thus, lack the neutral view on the problem to sort things out in a way that maintains oversight and such. Instead, let us find a sysop to whom this can all be explained, as well as your preferred resolution, and let a more neutral, calm voice sort things out. This should help us keep our actions transparent and accountable. ThuranX 02:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly why we ask uninvolved admins to act rather than ones in the middle of some conflict... Georgewilliamherbert 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

22:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked over the last few contributions of Deleti to the PKK article, and they are mostly images that are later deleted. I have indef blocked Deliti for uploading copyvio images but would welcome other admins review of my actions. LessHeard vanU 22:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would probably have used a shorter definite block initially, had the user at least acknowledged the warnings. Since they just kept at it, IMHO an indefinite block is warranted. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The images still need to be deleted. Though I would reccomend keeping the PKK flag as "fair use". I'll write a rationale now. --

chi?

07:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

On a second thought delete the flag too, it was from FOTW and was poorly converted from gif -> png. I have reuploaded it as a gif with proper format, source, fair use license and rationale. --

chi?

07:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

All images were deleted and deleti was indef blocked. --

chi?

22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

chi?

22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeffed this one, too -- obvious sockpuppet. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a

chi?

22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of warnings from talk page

Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) was warned a few times about his recent contributions. However, he decided to remove the warnings, which goes against Wikipedia's best practices. In addition to that, he called me a troll in the edit summary. Please take a look at the warnings that he removed from his talk page. His behavior is unacceptable. And removal of warnings about his unacceptable behavior is also unacceptable. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, he just restored his structure at the AFD he participated in (see here). This can be considered offensive by some users and is meant to influence the vote for deletion. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

He is allowed to remove the warnings if he so wishes. Viridae^Talk 11:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no maybe about his uncivil behaviour and personnal attacks, he even summarily accused all Ukrainian editors of Russophobia[116]. This is the user with the longest rap sheet[117] of name calling and gross incivility and here he goes again with personal attacks and uncivil insinuations. This behaviour needs to stop.--Hillock65 11:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you want another thread to slander me behind my back in retribution for this? How long should I defend my edits against nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki? If a passerby is free to paste some outrageous allegation on my talk page, anyone is free to remove it as well (especially as the relevant "case" was closed by an non-involved sysop with the summary "beyond ridiculous"). --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like you to please refrain from personal attacks and get your facts straight (I'm not 15). I've seen even ten year olds make great contributions to Wikipedia. As long as a user is unbiased and makes good contributions, it should not matter how old the user is. It was my choice to post my age, and I've done so at my own discretion. I feel I'm a fairly neutral person (yes, I know everybody says so), but I guess I'm not the one to judge. But neither is a person who calls everybody a troll, makes personal attacks, and violates many of Wikipedia's policies. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki" can be considered inflammatory and a personal attacks. If you have some evidence, just put it on the table. Dont just make accusations. Its our job to evaluate on the basis of edits not by looking at onse birth certificate or passport. --soum ^talk 11:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

To administrators: this report isn't as much about the removal of warnings as it is about the user's behavior. As you can see here, he continues to make personal attacks, even after being warned. And after making personal attacks he tries to hide the evidence by removing warnings from his talk page. This is exactly why I reported him, something definetly needs to be done. Steps in dispute resolution were already tried (including RFC), and this user was warned in an ArbCom case to refrain from personal attacks. I believe it was AndriyK's ArbCom case, if this qualifies for ArbCom enforcement. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, here's the bit that can qualify for ArbCom enforcement: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Ghirlandajo warned. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, from discussing the issue Ghirlando is starting his usual name calling and frivolous accusations. After numerous RfC's and ArbComs about his incivility this attitude still persists. What will it take for him to get the message?--Hillock65 11:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another message left by a user that was subsequently removed by Ghirlandajo: [118]. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

So what? Bishonen | talk 17:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

I thought this wasn't "as much about the removal of warnings" (despite the heading). Aren't users permitted to edit their talk page as they see fit? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, within reason. There's certainly nothing prohibiting users from redecorating their talk pages, or deciding what their structure ought to be. But it's unacceptable to make other people say what they didn't say on one's talk page, and removing serious warnings is generally frown upon. Digwuren 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Digwuren. Removing warnings is fine, whether "serious" or not. "Frowning" is possible in some situations--it's all according--but that's not carte blanche for you to pester somebody you're in conflict with by restoring warnings they have removed, as you do here. What's the interest, anyway? If Ghirlandajo removes a message from his own page, it shows he's read it; what more do you want?

WP:NOT a battleground. Please leave the pages of other users alone unless you have something to say to them. Ask yourself: am I adding information that the user wants or needs? The only legitimate use you can put another's talk page to is constructive communication with the user. It's not a noticeboard for displaying stuff that you think other people need to see. Bishonen | talk

17:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

This is one of several recent threads in which someone takes umbrage at a contributor removing warnings. Have we somehow been unclear on this? Any editor, regardless of block log, validity of warning, or who left said warning, may remove warnings for any reason or no reason. If anyone replaces the warning, they are engaging in edit warring on another contributor's talk page, and that is Not Acceptable Behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get why nobody has done anything about it yet. Ghirlandajo keeps reorganizing the AFD. The AFD can't be protected from Ghirlandajo's edits, because that would prevent others from voting. I'm going to report his reverts to the 3RR section. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks Like I can't report it to the 3RR noticeboard, but I feel this requires some kind of punishment. When has a user gotten away with so much trolling, personal attacks, and revert warring? I know you might tell me to go to ArbCom, but what makes a long-term abusive user so special over a short-term one? If nobody can do anything, at least please explain why, that way I know what to do if this happens in the future. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is my experience, after a few years here, that users who have been with the project for several years are are relatively active (and known), are allowed to bend (or break) the rules to an extent that new users would find it impossible. Further,

WP:NPA are common and rarely penalized, particularly if they come from 'older' editors. It is a sad occurrence, but there is no other explanation I can provide for why epithets like "nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki" go unpunished. Unfortunately, the only way you can try to deal with that is to start a lengthy [[WP:DR] process - with RfC, mediations, and eventually ArbCom in the end. Even more unfortunately, judging by the proposed decisions of an ArbCom involving myself and Ghirla, it is likely that such violations of those policies will remain unpunished and commonplace. And perhaps the most unfortunate is that this is paving a way for Wiki to degenerate into the level of flaming Usenet discussions, with all editors who can't stand such uncivil environment gone from the project :(-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

13:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In order to prove that my statement is not factual you need to demonstrate: 1) that the author of this thread is not a minor; 2) that he is not a nationalist; 3) that he does not coordinate his attacks on fellow wikipedians off-line. As far as I'm concerned, this argument is impossible to sustain. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I think Wikipedia operates under burden of proof. It is you who have to prove he is, in fact, what you claim him to be.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo's idea that the one accused should demonstrate his innocence reminds me of the NKVD 'justice'. In many cases, the defendants were explained, that they must prove that they are not guilty - not that the NKVD was obliged to point out alleged guilt. E.J. 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Ghirlandajo should be the one that demonstrates his innocence then. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting sick and tired of it. Another act of incivility. Ghirlandajo leaves a comment on my talk page, I respond, and then he doesn't respond back, deleting the comment I left on his talk page. If this continues and everybody refuses to do something about it, I WILL file for ArbCom. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As people keep telling you, there's no policy violation in someone refusing to talk to you. If you believe that there is an underlying policy abuse beyond the discussion, you can take it to (an uninvolved admin, here, etc), but they will not be sanctioned for removing the talk page comments. They're allowed to do that. It's ok. Georgewilliamherbert 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned above that this is not as much about the removal of comments as it is about the user's offensive behavior. Look at how many people he insulted. — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block for indef sock puppet

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone block

talk · contribs · block log), a sock puppet of Kirbytime? I have a question: When clerks do the checkuser and they find a likely or confirmed sock of a banned user, shouldnt the sock puppet be banned right then by the CU admin? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs}

) 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked Fâtimâh bint Fulâni. No comment on the CU question... —Wknight94 (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Typically, enforcement of policy (up to and including blocks for sockpuppetry) are the responsibility of the applicant. Applicants who are not administrators can forward requests to the admin noticeboard for enforcement, if needed. Clerks who are administators are invited, but not required, to assist with the enforcement of relevant policies." Daniel 00:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will do from now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Clerks are just editors who help to keep the page organized; they do not have checkuser access. Generally the checkusers prefer to leave enforcement to others so they don't have to put up with charges of conflict of interest.

Thatcher131

23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring and removal of citation tags

There is an extensive edit war going on at Thriller. One user is repeatedly removing citation requests without providing any citations.--124.176.6.98 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've started a section on the talk page. Perhaps you'd care to comment? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this is being discussed; feel free to mention any edit warring that crops up, but I'm tempted to slap a {{resolved}} on this, for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about "customer confidentiality" in coporate articles

I reverted and warned User:Marcomm for deletions of large sections of the article Celestica. He then reinstated his changes with edit summaries like this one. I'm reasonably certain that we don't give in to tactics of this type, but I wanted to check first, since I've never dealt with this particular situation before. I'm also going to bang a note on his talk page asking him to be more specific, since this info seems to be readily available anyway. Dina 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• If the info is readily available, it can be
  sourced - facilitating the argument that nothing confidential is being released. WilyD
  14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Marcomm is editing as "cls corporate". That's a COI and needs to be stopped. Corvus cornix 18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• It may be wise to refer this to
  WP:OTRS, if it continues to escalate. – Luna Santin (talk
  ) 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Bloating"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chaos_Space_Marines&action=history

The user Xezbeth persistently deletes additions to the page which are trying to make the page not problematic. The page lacked any third party sources and has almost no information about the actual subject. He claims that the page is being "bloated" even though the additional text has done nothing but provide vital information and could be trimmed down. He also removes links that add third party information on the subject.

On the Articles for Deletion, which I put forth, two people have said to delete the page, one person has said to merge all the pages, and one person has stated that the main page needs to stay but the others need to be checked for deletion. One user, Xezbeth, just makes and attack and is starting trouble. The guy even blatantly lied in his subject heading by saying no one suggested a merge when the third person, Haemo, did, and a merge would be the obvious way to reconcile the split view point where most people agree that the pages have serious issues. Xezbeth didn't even bother putting a real answer for his vote and then he thinks that he can try and keep the page from being improved? NobutoraTakeda 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting Xezbeth on a talk page yet?-Wafulz 14:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. NobutoraTakeda 14:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How good of you to ignore the multiple keep !votes on the AfD. Anyway I don't think there's anything warranting admin attention here. the wub "?!" 14:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Four multiple keep votes. 2 only said keep for the main page. One was his and he said it was just abuse of rules without a legitimate reason. Then he keeps others from trying to fix the page. Obviously if I am trying to improve the page that I am not ignoring keep votes. NobutoraTakeda 14:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

With your very first edit being the nomination for deletion of said article, I can understand how Xezbeth is somewhat miffed. I also have to wonder if you're not someone's sock with a very specific agenda. New users generally don't jump into article deletion right from the start. That said, Xezbeth does seem to be reverting sourced additions to the article without much thought. Someone with more knowledge of the subject matter should look into that.--Atlan (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I already began the entry on the delete that I had to create a registered name just so I could propose a delete. It was more than what a prod could handle. I was happy to just go around and comment on articles or point out problems without a name but this article needed to be put up for lacking third party sources that establish notability. No one has been able to establish notability for the other pages, only the main page. And being new gives Xezbeth the right to edit in that way or to follow me to other pages? could an admin please readd the third party sources or give me an explanation on why they are not appropriate on a page that lacks them? NobutoraTakeda 15:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am involved in this issue. The fact that the

Chaos Space Marines being reverted. My suggestion here would be that Nobutora attempts to edit in a more friendly fashion, and perhaps that he produces what he considers to be an improved version of the page in a sandbox somewhere, after which it can be compared with the current version when this has cooled down a bit. --Pak21

15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What does "an aggressive style" even mean? You linked to a page in which a guy is owning the page because of his name, a page of a person who has issues with me and is trying to bother me, and two pages in which people attack me for being new. My edits to Chaos Space Marines added third party information. I tried to compromise by improving a page I criticized. If that is aggressive and not good faith, I don't think anyone could ever be editing in good faith ever. NobutoraTakeda 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"An aggressive style" means edits involving phrases like "You keep accusing others, but you seem to just erase anything that wasn't put in by you", "You also blatantly lied", "The person who reverted my edit is a blatant liar", "You have a problem with the truth" and "You were unnecessarily rude and you have no excuse for being rude". See

WP:CIVIL. --Pak21

19:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)