Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive318

Resolved

Last night during new page patrolling I issued a CSD notice on article

with a link to a different company. He's also made a legal threat in response to an image he uploaded being deleted. After the

I've cleaned up most of the mess he's left but as he's just come back online I don't know how long the clean-up will last.I'd like to recommend that administrative action be taken sooner rather than later to stop this disruptive behaviour. Thanks. ---- WebHamster 15:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoary has applied a 24-hour block and I've left a message for the user. --Chris (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I did miss a second legal threat he'd left on the Talk:Drake Circus Shopping Centre page, but as he's getting a cool down period I don't think it matters. Cheers. It makes new page patrolling so worthwhile :) ---- WebHamster 15:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He certainly is tired and emotional, isn't he? His IP number has won itself a matching vacation. -- Hoary 15:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

<poltergeist>He's baaaaacccckkkk </poltergeist> - This time as User:84.45.220.163 wreaking more havoc on the Drake Circus Shopping Centre. I've reverted it, but he doesn't seem to want to calm down! ---- WebHamster 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this may not be resolved. There's either a sock or meat puppet on the scene now, to whit User:Curatorpccgovuk, who's making similar but non-destructive edits. Presumably it's too early in the scenario to put a semi-protect on it but could an administrator please monitor the going's on in this obviously controversial shopping centre?! ---- WebHamster 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Also there's the IP

T | C

) 00:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading between the lines it's looking like half of Plymouth Uni are going to get in on the action. It would appear that there may been some stirring up of trouble off-wiki. Maybe it should be semi-protected for a week or so just till the novelty wears off? ---- WebHamster 00:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it seems to have tapered off for now, it doesn't seem an issue. If it picks up it'll be a good idea. —

T | C

) 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. Requested. —

T | C

) 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved to

20:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture

Resolved

Things are getting a bit hot over at

17:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• WAS is right, nobody owns that page. Nor do I see any actual trolling there. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree. Furthermore, you shouldn't throw a policy, especially
  trolling policies, towards users who have shown no reason not to assume good faith with. 68.143.88.2
  18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you do have a tendency to try and

own articles. Especially horse related ones. 68.143.88.2

18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am asking simply that administrators begin to babysit the discussion over there. I think it's needed. The work in that project was started by Doug, and I do not tnink Doug is guilty of "ownership." Montanabw^(talk) 18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an admin "babysitter" is going to be helpful there, and really that isn't part of the job description. What is needed is for everyone there to take a deep breath,

dispute resolution if you can't all work together calmly.--Isotope23 ^talk

19:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Both of you guys need to calm down. There was no original personal attack, and WAS seemed to overreact. The report to AIV by montana was taking that too far though, another overreaction. It's a semi-petty dispute that was blown way out of proportion. Montanabw, whether it was a personal attack, just stop posting everywhere about it. WAS, the mass-reverting of him isn't helping matters either. Wizardman 19:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  On second thought, now that I see montana's been browsing through admins and complaining in the past hour, whereas WAS has stopped editing and not been a bother, the overreaction is leaning a lot more towards his corner now, I ask him especially to calm down and stop. Wizardman 19:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will just calm down now because there are people monitoring the situation, but do note This, not my edit, someone else's. Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That particular blanking is acceptable under Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I know it's only an essay but it's generally accepted. So long as he doesn't blank anything else and you're calm, then this will solve itself. Wizardman 19:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Montanabw recruted User:Warlordjohncarter who did the actual templating which only made the situation worse. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, I just want out of this. It all started here Please, this is all that I originally did. I didn't even name the person, and if that was a problem, I do apologize, but heavens, I have never been attacked like this or so seriously misunderstood! Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that there was a very minor dispute that was badly blown out of proportion by multiple editors. I trust you Montanabw have learned something about forum shopping and making mountains out of molehills, John Carter has hopefully learned not to template the regulars and warn over removals, and maybe WAS 4.250 will be a bit less sensitive about these sorts of accusations. I'd suggest you all put this behind you and move on to article editing.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Montanabw, also please be aware that regular contributors will tend to come across comments on user pages. Sections like User_talk:Warlordjohncarter#We have a troll are inflammatory. You do not have a troll, you have someone who was working on across a set of articles, which this project has sought to take ownership of and WAS has responded with some (minor) observations. You have presumed that an edit is uncivil, when normal Wikipedia policy is that everything, including policy pages, are up for anyone to edit. In that context, perhaps it is the project that should be accused of incivility. WAS is likely to be a great ally to the project, but not if he is ostracised before the project even makes any progress. In short, deal with the content, not the people. Spenny 19:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, montanabw. The original edit shouldn't have been removed, keep in mind though that that may have been a missed edit conflict by the system. (I've done that before and had people ask why I reverted them when I didn't) It shouldn't have Snowball'd as far as it did. Just stop asking around for help, it's being taken care of. Warlordjohncarter adding the template did make this more of a problem though. I'll keep on eye on your guys' edits for a little while, it should be diffused now. Wizardman 19:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and mark this resolved as there is nothing further requiring admin attention at this time.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The house has been doing some COI edits to Blue Dog Coalition lately, see Special:Contributions/143.231.249.141. As this is an relatively sensitive ip-address, actions against this ip can have major implications, so I need more input on what should be done. Warnings seems to be without result, but would a block be better or worse? _→AzaToth 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The workday there is over. Let's see if problems continue tomorrow. Newyorkbrad 21:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that all the images uploaded by Roadcrusher3 are copyvios, some with incorrect licenses. Please deal with this; thank you. --NE2 21:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and deleted the blatant copyvios and incorrectly licensed images, the rest are tagged for lack of sourcing. A couple were properly tagged though, so I think the uploader has a rudimentary understanding of image policy and could contribute productively with a little guidance. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This user just made a huge edit to thrash metal, removing whole sections with no reason. This contitutes vandalism and I would appreciate swift action. Navnløs 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Try talking to him. Edits look like good faith. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, I can't talk to the person since they're not there any more, apparently. And NO, the other edits that user did seem fine, but on the thrash metal page he removed WHOLE sections with no reason. Those sections happened to be backed up by fact and were correct. Navnløs 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he had a reason but didn't say what it was? Anyway if he has gone there is nothing we can do. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It very well could have been unintentional. The wiki interface can be a bit confusing at first. I left a delete-caution notice (del-1) on his talk page just to be careful. If this keeps happening, then we can look at it as vandalism, but for now,

assume good faith until proven otherwise. Arakunem^Talk

22:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I will, but I can assure you that that editor knew what they were doing and did it out of bad faith. They specifically erased a few sentences talking about Megadeth, among other sections. Those people who know something about thrash will tell you that editor was obviously trying to take out important sections in thrash histoy and he was specifically targeting certain things. But nothing can be done now and it's been reverted so no harm done I guess. Navnløs 22:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This user made a complete rewrite of the

22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This AfD has been open for over eight days and no one has added anything new in the last 48 hours - would someone mind closing it? It invlolves four different pages and having the AfD banners all over Wikipedia seems unneccessary at this stage. Sorry for the trouble. [[Guest9999 23:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)]]

• I have closed it. I daresay my discerning of consensus may be challenged. Sam Blacketer 00:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help. [[Guest9999 03:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)]]

You split the baby! It was a well-considered decision. Wikidemo 03:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have just blocked

00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Material that he wanted in the article was deleted as unsourced. His reaction was to delete the rest of the article. That's

disruption to make a point. The length of the block seems reasonable for the behavior. Hopefully the user will return and avoid future disruptions. - Jehochman ^Talk

01:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The user made harmful comments to myself and

Tasc0

03:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Can some one look at semi-protecting this page due to vandalism and edit warring, made a request at

03:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

There is an issue with the Milk-maid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in regards to multiple unproductive edits to several articles including:

• Fruit preserves
• Gelatin dessert
• Jam
• Jelly
• Justin Timberlake
• Pederasty

She has been given several warnings by both users and admins in regards to these edits and has continued to do so. Currently she is on a charge to undo a consensus move/merge discussion dealing with international variations of the English language in regards to the first four items. By moving them to the Commonwealth variation of English naming scheme she has undone hours of work ensuring that these articles were neutral in their global point of view. When the discussion was pointed out to she simply dismissed it and moved the pages again.

She appears to be ignoring her talk page about this particular issue.

I would like someone to please take a look at this issue before it gets out of hand, I do not want to violate the 3RR rule undoing her repeated moves.

Jeremy (Jerem43 05:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Too many warnings since a month now. Blocked for 31h for disruptive editing after many warnings. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ararat_arev, an indef banned user, has been IP hoping and making POV edits on various historic Armenian articles. He pretty much copy-pastes the same text[1] into the articles. A handful of articles got semi-protected and I just requested 4 more to be protected as well.

05:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The account was block, no further action is necessary at the moment, Thanks. --VartanM 06:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done (ec) I just blocked this rather obvious sock as part of

WP:RPP work. The four target articles are now semi-protected, too - Alison ^❤

06:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring by

Hxseek

Hxseek for the past month or so has been edit warring against consensus on the following articles: Macedonians (ethnic group) (12 reverts in the last week) and Macedonia naming dispute (7 reverts in the last week). Nationalist language has generally been used. When dialog was attempted on the talk page the user responded with personal attacks. ForeignerFromTheEast 14:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was protected early this morning. --Chris (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been involved in a number of attempts to reduce Hxseek's habits of edit warring and making personal attacks, going back to his account creation. While his behavior has improved in that he is no longer using sockpuppets to edit-war, little else has changed. I see very little improvement in his behavior. I don't see article protection as a solution to these long-running problems. --

Ronz

19:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation involving Hxseek will most likely have to be investigated in the context of the next big ethnic-warfare Arbcom case, which I see soon ahead, and which most certainly will also take a deep look at ForeignerFromTheEast and several others. As for you, Ronz, you have done absolutely nothing constructive with respect to the dispute in question; all I can see in your involvement with Hxseek is a stalking campaign, for which I am quite willing to block you the next time I see you jumping on a bandwagon like you did here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the sockpuppetry allegation against Hxseek mentioned by Ronz above is bogus, and Ronz ought to know better. He once managed to get Hxseek blocked through a spurious

here and here. Repeating this old canard here now is little more than a devious attempt at character assassination. Fut.Perf. ☼

22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take this personal dispute that you have against me to a proper forum. Thanks. --

Ronz

16:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Ronz has retracted the sockpuppetry allegation above, I'll strike my rather harsh judgment above. I do still think, however, that Ronz' posting was characteristic of a general attitude shown by him against Hxseek that I continue to find deeply unconstructive. This is all I have to say at the moment; I don't know what other forum he would like to take this to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've struck out my response as well.

Given Hxseek's persistent problems, for months now I've tried my best to avoid interacting with him (and the similarly behaving editors there) in any way that would escalate the edit warring or provoke the hair-trigger tempers. However I still monitor and edit the same articles that he does. I believe I'm allowed to voice my concerns about what I see him doing. I hope that there are other steps that could be taken prior to this becoming "the next big ethnic-warfare Arbcom case" but I do appreciate that others see that the scope of the problem is beyond just Hxseek's behavior. --

Ronz

18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you indeed FuturePerf for you just actions, and I have to admit I was getting rather annoying with his continuous 'warnings' against me, reverting even most straight-forward and uncontroversial contributions. But that matters not

The new issue I have been concerned with is the Ethnic Macedonians article, and Macedonia dispute.

I have attempted several times to reach the editors of the article about mediating and moderating their contributions. THe editors I am referring to are Jingiby, Laveol, and ForeignerFromThe east. Now I don;t want to offent these chaps, are accuse them of abnything, but I cannot suspect that they seem to be 'hijacking' the Ethnic macedonians articl, especially the history and Identities section. They seem intent on useing the 'identities' section on venting their ideas that 'Macedonians are Bulgarians'. I did not delete these notions, in fact I validated their opinions. Its just that they literally are occupying the entire article with this obsession of theirs. I have tried reasoning with them that, yes , it is worth mentioning that historically many considered Macedonians as Bulgarians, the 'identities' section should focus on what makes Macedonians Macedonian. Instead they clutter the article with endless 'facts' , quotes, etc etc trying to prove their point, often very poorly written as obviously they are non-English natives.

In addition to this, the entire WWI section was about Bulgarian campaigns

My plea to curb their agenda seems to be falling on deaf ears. In fact, they accuse me of being a nationalist ? ? Makes no sense to me.

09:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

i don't know if this is the right place to report this but some editor posted this - a chain-letter scam. isn't this illegal? what do we do about this kind of thing? can someone report him to the authorities? Law & Disorder 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, for our purposes, it's just vandalism, and since we don't even know who or where the editor is, I'm not sure which 'authorities' we could contact. But there were home addresses included, so I deleted the revisions that contained the information. I don't know if this is the sort of thing that needs to be oversighted or not. I'll also put a warning on his talk page, just in case he ever comes back. -- Vary | Talk 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, User:Michaelbusch beat me to the talk page warning. -- Vary | Talk 19:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a flashback... "Post this on at least 200 Newsgroups" I can't believe that same post is still going around. I have not seen that in probably 10-15 years.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think oversighting the addresses are necessary; these "Make Money Fast" things have been floating around the 'Net for years with addresses attached (some of which may even be real), & nothing has ever come of those attachments -- just some potential humiliation over a scam that doesn't work. (See Ponzi, recent Albanian history, Dave Rhodes, etc.) -- llywrch 20:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

ok thanks. ^Law/_Disorder 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The userpage "vandalism" looks more like a misplaced comment to the user. --Ali'i 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by your comment Ali'i? Which comment are you talking about?

Sure, but e kala mai for interrupting. ScienceApologist said that with this edit, Davkal was "vandaliz[ing] user pages". It actually looks more like a misplaced comment to the user. Sometimes people post comments on a person's userpage rather than on their talk page. It's actually a fairly common occurance. Mahalo. --Ali'i 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Davkal, he has been nothing but trouble. He has accused me of being both a sock puppet and a

Hgilbert have been much more civil throughout the process of working towards a consensus but Davkal has been unable to remain civil. After being warned by both OrangeMarlin twice and once myself, he deleted the warnings from his page because he deemed them harassment. He even copied nearly the exact same warning I put on his page and put it onto mine, as you can see from this and then accused me again of being a sock puppet of SA. He has an extensive history of disruptive editing, as SA mentioned, which has culminated in 6 separate blocks. Even after all of these blocks, he has shown little change in his editing styles. It is time so show this editor the door. Baegis

22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Baegis makes great play of the fact that he's not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of scienceapologist. Well he's certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of someone. His first edits were to an RFC [[2]]! And then a few days later he jokes with Dave Souza on his talk page about his seeming familiarity with all things wiki[[3]]. His first words to me on the List of pseudosciences talk page was to tell me to leave [[4]]. And he has since accused me ov vandalism [[5]], for trying to uphold the an arbcom decision. He now seems to spend his time almost exclusively following ScienceApologist around wiki gang editing to avoid 3RR, including removing legitimately placed disputed tags from the list of pseudosciences article (added because there was a clear dispute involving at least three editors on either side - even though this was always presented as only me against the world - which was the same dispute that resurfaces constantly on that article because it has never been resolved). Not only does he follow ScienceApologist about, he seems to know SA's mind very well: well enough to make a change to SA's entry here as if he almost knew what SA was thinking[[6]]. SA also has a long history of using sockpuppets, while at the same time vehemently denying it - at one point he had three on the go at the EVP page at the same time and when he was finally caught still tried to blame a student of his editing from his home PC! This is not about my behaviour at all, but about an organised group of editors who have tried to hijack many articles about the paranormal - generally threatening, abusing, and harassing any editor who stands up to them, and who, after failing to get the arbcom on the paranormal to back up their spurious arguments have taken to trying to eliminate all the editors who oppose them one by one. SA is currently trying to have both editors he is currently in dispute with (myself and martinphi) banned from wiki. I urge you to look at SA's past history - including his recent total rejection of the arbcom he initiated, and to view this request here in the light of that.

I am certainly not blameless, but since my worst indiscretions were well over a year ago, I have tried to bring things to the talk page where the response has almost always been to simply turn the the discussion onto me and to threaten me endlessly. My recent edit on the list of pseudosciences talk page resulted in about three such threats within a few days.Davkal 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, you say you aren't blameless. Ok, we all know you edit war, and you aren't civil. The ArbCom knows. I like you, and I know that one of these days you're going to get a permanent ban if you continue to edit as you do. So, would you be willing to change your editing style? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You know it's bad when Martinphi says that Davkal is a problem! ScienceApologist 00:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If I could have a sensible conversation with an admin, or someone neutral here (someone who is not obviously a supporter of the gang of editors I have been in dispute with) to discuss a sensible way to take this forward then I would welcome that opportunity. The problem though, as witnessed in your recent RFC, is that all we really get are the same group of editors whose suggestions consist mainly of telling us to doff our caps and accept the truth of what Scienceapologist, for example, are telling us. The recent paranormal arcbcom demonstrated that on a significant number of policy issues we were correct. The recent point here, made by a member of the Rational Skeptics group and a mediator [[7]]group illustrates what I feel I am up against. As does the recent stuff on the list of pseudosciences. Three threats of bans as soon as I make a reasonable point (that many many have agreed with over the course of this dispute) and then an accusation of bullying when I respond by suggesting another editor's behaviour may be worthy of a ban.

As noted, then, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss my behaviour seriously with someone who knows wiki policy, and can suggest a way forward, but I cannot accept that I have to put up with constant harassment and incivility. There is a general problem with civility in Wiki, and in the world of paranormal Wiki there is virtually no such thing. Witness this recent edit from SA [[8]]. That's the kind of thing I don't feel I should have to put up with every day of my life just because I think articles on the paranormal should not be any less neutral than any other article.

So, if someone would care to discuss my edit history over the passed week or so, and genuinely let me know what is unacceptable and what is not then I will do all I can to follow their recommendations in good faith. I also feel, however, that there are others here who need to go down this same route.Davkal 00:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the kind of thing that is just a commonplace when dealing with ScienceApologist. First, he demands that we identify the source of a picture [[9]]. Then, he uses that attribution to tag the article as spam [[10]]. And then accuses another editor of trying to hijack the whole of wiki [[11]]. And all this really because an arbcom ruling means that the caption for a picture doesn't support his POV as much as he would like.[[12]] Davkal 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Ali'i pointed out, Davkal may have not meant to vandalize OM's user page. But what he did insert was surely a personal attack against SA and I. I won't address the puppet accusations in any great detail because they are completely baseless. With regards to my first edit being on an RFC, well, who cares? I thought that RFC's were for community input. Just because I was a brand new editor I wasn't supposed to comment? And yes, I made a joke with Dave that I was a bit familiar with everything because I have always been tinkering with WP without a user name. I corrected a few misspellings here, a broken link here, revert a little vandalism, all very minor stuff. So I was familiar with how things worked when I finally registered my user name. Contrary to your belief, I do not follow SA around and "gang edit" articles. We just have similar interests. The articles that we have worked on together are dwarfed by the amount of articles that SA has worked on that I haven't or vice versa (a lot heavier on SA's side). You are making this claim from two articles,

LOPAPC

(which was actually my 2nd comment to you, the first mentioning how your proposed title change was not a good idea) must be read in the context of what Simeos mentioned above, in which he cautioned you twice about your behavior. Taken out of context they make me look like a rabble-rouser. Read in the correct context I am merely echoing another editors concerns.

I don't know enough about SA to know about the use of sock's in previous discussions but it is hardly relevant to your current behavior. If SA has had sock's in the past, I am sure punishment will come, especially since it is addressed in the current Arbcom between MartinPhi and SA. However, I would like to say that SA made an extremely bold series of edits in the EVP article that have improved the article significantly. It is not hijacking, but improving the article. I am not sure what you mean exactly by having editors tell you to doff your caps to SA but from everything I have seen so far with working with SA, is that 99% of the time SA is completely correct, especially in regard to policy. Baegis 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Davkal seems to disappear and then reappear whenever he/she wants to disrupt something such as an RFA, an arbitration or an attempt to get consensus on improving an article and frequently inserts POV. For instance this user vanishes for a month and then reappears to oppose a RFA. Vanishes for another month and then reappears to support a RFA. Vanishes for another month and then reappears at an arbitration. All relating to article content that this user frequently attempts to drive POV into. This user has been blocked an astonishing 10 times in the past year for edit warring etc. This is clearly a problematic user and has made little positive contributions to the project. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just looking for a few thoughts, on several Family Guy articles, the __NOTOC__ is on the article, upon removal of this during an expansion I'm performing to Mother Tucker and the now finished Blind Ambition, it is being repeatedly readded, would it be possible to get some opinions on whether it is worth removing it just to re-add it again as they user says he will if the article becomes long enough? I've discussed it with the user, but we can't reach an agreement. I intentionally have not named names. Qst 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, an article should always have a Table of Content. A ToC is there to provide in-article navigation and gives you a quick overview of what is in the article. NOTOC should only be used when a ToC is really in the way, or when a customized ToC template is being used. The ToC only appears on articles automatically if there are three or more sections, so having NOTOC on a short page is pointless anyway. — Edokter • Talk • 02:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am part of this situation and the TOC on these pages seems unneccessary. It shouldn't just be a general decision to use TOC or not, but instead really needs to be a case by case basis. Most of the pages are small enough that they would fit on one screen for an average size monitor. Adding the TOC just adds clutter from everything thats already visable, plus it actual requires more work to see the whole page. Also, most of these shows currently don't have more than two or so categories so the TOC isn't really warranted in those cases either. Im all for adding a TOC when the page becomes complex and having the TOC in place is efficient and time saving. In those particular situations the TOC could be added, I just dont think it should be made standard for all these articles from the get go. the NOTOC option helps keep the presentation simple and helps present the information often in a more appealing matter. So it should be a case by case basis if it should be inserted or not, but in most cases with these small articles its currently unnecessary and actually makes the page more work to read and navigate. Grande13

im saying that most of the articles that are in question here either have things that could be combined in multiple categories to keep it under the 3 min to prevent the TOC, or that a majority of the sections, such as references, only contain one link or so, and take up only a small fraction of the page. Grande13 02:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a good reason why the NOTOC word should ever be used on an article. In this case, both articles mentioned above are 7 or 8 pages long on my laptop monitor. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

thats because those two are the first in a long process of being redone. The majority of the other articles are much smaller in sizeGrande13 03:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• What administrative action are you looking for here? For a broader consensus I'd start discussing this at
  Wikipedia:WikiProject Family Guy and/or Talk:Family Guy. — xaosflux ^Talk
  11:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting personal attacks on user talk

I have blocked AWeidman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indef and reset the ban on DPeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to a year (original arb ban length from Aug 30 2007), the former as a reactivated sock of a banned user, the latter as customary for ban evasion.

However based on the conduct and evidence below I would like to also test the waters on changing the ban to an indefinite one, as a community ban. If after reading the details below, anyone disagrees with this, then please feel free to discuss.

Background and evidence

In July 2007 a bunch of socks used to wage POV war by DPeterson were indef blocked and at the end of the arb case the sockmaster DPeterson sitebanned for a year (WP:RFArb/Attachment Therapy, July/Aug 2007). The nature of the warring was unusually virulent, and up till virtually the day of the ban the user continued to try and pursue a career of warring, opening new wars, fabricated claims, personal attack, subtle sabotage of links ("i" -> "ii") to websites of AWeidman's opponents by an AWeidman IP, professional defamation added into references, and smearing or stalking editors to other articles (evidenced at Arb). During the arbitration itself, he followed an editor to another article and used two socks to commence warring there. The war, when finally analyzed, included 6 -8 socks (including IPs) which co-edited on some 56 articles from therapy to pedophilia, for a period of a year. Other actions included creation of attack articles, and stonewalling. His denial of puppetry and counterattack that these were bad faith allegations persisted through to arbitration, and was maintained in response to a direct question by an arb clerk, until finally pinned down by further checkuser. He had tried to use different IP's to hide it. At the time arbitration opened, the 6 accounts had not been proven connected. I joined the case at arbitration due to the complexity of the sock evidence, solely to present evidence of puppetry. Later, checkuser rechecks showed that four, then five of the accounts were socks, and all but one of these (user:DPeterson) were indef blocked. There were strong protests at this decision: the sixth (user:AWeidman), had been inactive some time and although a "known sock", was stated to have escaped blocking for this reason although the user could be blocked outright with ease, if he did return under that or another name.

Following DPeterson ban on Wikipedia, AWeidman account reactivates on Wikia with DPeterson's editing pattern.

As well as running the DPeterson account, the sock user also had accounts as AWeidman on both Wikipedia and on Psychology Wikia. These were both known to be DPeterson socks, but the former had been left untouched on Wikipedia on the basis it could be blocked if reactivated, and the second was on WIkia where the case had no jurisdiction. Both of these AWeidman accounts had gone inactive at the same time (Nov/Dec 2006) and both had remained inactive since, except 2 - 3 edits each in March/June 2007. However, as DPeterson's case came up for final close and ban, the AWeidman account was reactivated on Wikia and began editing the exact same psychology articles as warred on Wikipedia (including attachment disorder and Dyadic developmental psychotherapy), and using the same name as on Wikipedia ("Dr. Art"). (I emailed Wikia-l to advise them of this editor, since his edit warring on Wikipedia had been virulent.) This provides further evidence on top of the behavioral evidence in my Arb evidence, that this was the same individual. Not that further evidence was needed: even without checkuser the behavioral evidence was compellingly strong, covering spelling, articles, styles, editing in common, same IP's, correcting each others' edits, and almost every other sock behavior under the sun.

Recent events and ban proposal

During September and October the AWeidman account was inactive on Wikipedia, and edited strongly on Wikia. On October 29, DPeterson reactivated his Wikipedia AWeidman account in breach of the arbcom ban. He has since made 8 edits on it -- but none of which are productive, all of which relate to harassment of his old target's organization (eg demanding IRS documents), or implying bad faith that they do not present them: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. I have therefore blocked the reactivated sock indef as a sock of DPeterson, and reset the ban and matching block on DPeterson for a year. This is a warrior who never has cared for Wikipedia except to wage war and to self promote - usually viciously and unscrupulously, or to damage his targets and perceived opponents without care as to integrity. I would like to test the opinion of the community for extending the years ban to a community ban for this unrepentant and damaging individual.

Proposal to not unblock for the purposes of discussion.

It is common to unblock editors for discussion. If anyone wishes to unblock him for the purpose of this discussion I would not stand to prevent that, but would say simply, he has shown not one shred of honesty or integrity in any of his claims, defenses, or allegations, and has used the opportunity to speak only to lie, smear, and divert attention, and muddy the waters as thoroughly as he can with false or flimsy counterallegations against all parties who do not support him, claims with spurious "non-evidence", allegations of bad faith motive or visibly non-existant "collaboration" or COI, and so on. His modus was to repeat claims and allegations with non-existant, blatently untruthful or tissue-thin evidence, then repeat and re-repeat on an "I didn't hear that" basis as established facts no matter what was said. (Examples of this included that Shotwell and others were co-editing, that User:Fainites and I were collaborating and had editing history in common, and so on. Pointing to contribs history that did not show any of these, did not stem the reposting of these at arb and elsewhere.) As Jayjg (checkuser) stated: "Within 4 minutes of my posting the checkuser results above, User:DPeterson had posted a "Comment" claiming there was "no evidence presented" for my statements. I submit that that is prima facie evidence of the style of tendentious argumentation of which DPeterson is accused." A sample of this (many times over) is visible at (and all over) the arb case and its workshop; he also repeated it at ANI and every other venue he could. I don't think a platform to repeat them yet again will benefit this discussion. He has abused this opportunity each and every other time it was given. I'm therefore leaving his talk page unprotected but with a warning that abuse or posting of personal attacks will cause it to be protected. Can someone watch it both for tenuous counterattacks and comments for ANI?

Action taken to date:

1. Both blocks double-checked and endorsed by uninvolved arb clerk Picaroon, due to own prior involvement in arb case
2. AWeidman indef blocked (sock of banned user)
3. DPeterson ban reset to 1 year (evasion)
4. Blocks noted on Arb list of blocks and bans
5. Notes left (or will be left) on AWeidman and DPeterson talk pages - done
6. This post to ANI.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• The case presentation seems thoroughly researched and well documented. I've watchlisted the puppetmaster's talk page in case they post a comment. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• I had hoped that Weidman would take his chance to walk away without forcing us to block the Aweidman, so we didn't have to connect his real name to the despicable activity he was engaging in via sockpuppets while that account was inactive. But, it seems he's wasted his chance. His main account, DPeterson, should be reblocked indefinitely for ban evasion. Picaroon (t) 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• I would oppose such a change of ban, a re-set year should be enough,
  SqueakBox
  02:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  He sockpuppeted to evade a ban that should have been indefinite in the first place, 'cept the committee has decided not to do those any more. And these were not your normal sockpuppet edits; he was harassing other users he is engaged in some sort of real-world disagreement with about their taxes on Wikipedia. What part of this suggests a user who will ever be a useful, good-faith presence on Wikipedia? Picaroon (t) 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  I disagree that he should have been indef banned in the first place. He did some constructive work on the pedophilia articles and almost certainly did not use socks there (there were none there that would have been likely to be him) and I think it a shame he wasn't just banned from the attachment therapy articles where he is clearly being an agenda-driven user,

  SqueakBox

  04:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  So this suggests that it is still problematic. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox - he edit warred on the pedophilia articles..... using accounts RalphLender, MarkWood, DPeterson, JonesRD, and SamDavidson as abusive socks. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attachment_Therapy/Evidence#Scale_of_activity_elsewhere. And about 50 other articles..... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I fail to see why Wikipedia would need such an editor. We need to crack down on things like this, not give second chances, even if it is for more than a full year. Mr.Z-man 02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Tolerance is one thing but this behaviour is persistent and documented over a long period. I'd say yes to indefinite block. Pigman^what?/trail 03:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  Some constructive work does not justify egregious trolling or personal attacks. Almost every troll makes a few good edits, by accident, or as cover for their bad actions. If somebody is substantially disruptive, and it becomes clear that their primary purpose is disruptive, we need to ban them. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I declare an interest as one of the editors involved in the attachment articles, arbitration and on Wikia. I have tried to work with him co-operativly on Wikia (where they have no controls other than pleas to decency) after the arbitration to no avail. I support an indef ban. This user is utterly unscrupulous and in my view has no interest in writing decent articles. I appreciate he was popular amongst the anti paedophiles and his particular form of sock puppet bullying may well have worked on the 'side of the angels' there, but I would ask SqueakBox to imagine how he would have felt if those kinds of tactics had been used in the other direction? He has not changed in nearly two years. Chance enough I believe. Fainites ^barley 11:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• endorse indef. ban. I've lurked about and followed some of the attachment therapy drama from a short while before the arbcom hearing started. the User is clearly not here to develop an encyclopdia of neutral material on psychology issues (where he is quite knowlegable, if misguided). He's had plenty of time to reform and plenty of opportunity to be an honest editor. --Rocksanddirt 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For your information, the ip who has been disrupting a few minutes ago this noticeboard and following my edits is (are) the IPs used by indef blocked

02:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I support a range block, although there will be a lot of collateral damage. As someone who was targeted by Mariam83 back in July, I can attest to the vindictiveness of this vandal. Locking half of Texas may seem drastic, but Mariam83 is persistent and if the ISP will do nothing, well perhaps a range block is required. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 02:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It would not be reasonable to block half of a place just because of one person. Are you sure about the scope? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm exaggerating a bit. I just recall that the IPs all resolve to one or two cities there. I haven't checked recently. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking half of Texas(two cities, edit conflict) would seam a bit heavy because of one person, is it possible to semi protect articles instead. Gnangarra 03:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

that's because she has a dear meatpuppet friend somewhere else apart from Houston. But that happened so rarely. Maybe they are not friends anymore. Do you still think that it deals w/ the whole city instead of a limited scope? Because it is still not reasonable to block a whole city as per Gnangarra. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF also has the problem of her stalking him by systematically reverting his edits, like she did last night. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So far, SqueakBox has, out of an abundance of passion and good intentions:

• Proposed the article at AfD. Result: No consensus.
• Challenged the AfD at DRV. Result: No consensus.

He then proposed merging the article into child sexual abuse, an action that the admin closing the AfD found no consensus for. After less than 24 hours, he carried out the merge & redirect. I've reverted him & attempted to dialogue with him about this on Talk:Adult-child sex. Can the article content be kept where it is, as the AfD & DRV decisions both allowed, whilee a meaningful discussion takes place? --Ssbohio 02:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And why does this need admin intervention? The strong consensus was to merge as a look at the adult-child sex talk page, the afd and the drv all reveal. There was nothing controversial here and a number of editors had participated in the merge, not just me, I merely initiated it. I cannot imageine why SSbohio thinks admin intervention is required, except that he appears angry and here,

SqueakBox

03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the forum to argue this, but, in short: consensus couldn't be reached in AFD or DRV, yet you found a consensus among five editors in under 24 hours that coincidentally supports your long-standing proposal for the article. You appear willing to

edit your way to the article you want, and the only tool I can think of to stabilize the edit history is administrator intervention. --Ssbohio

03:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that misrepresents how things have been and the clear consensus almost everywhere, for merging including here, the afd, the drv and the current tlak page whic includes a lot of strong support for this and, until you came, no opposition, so why is admin intervention needed?

SqueakBox

03:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is quite clear from comments such as this that I was not alone in believing consensus had and has been achieved,

SqueakBox

04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I brought it up here because you continued to redelete the content of the article when the AfD closed as keep (no consensus) & the DRV endorsed the AfD. The consensus you claim consists of you & five others. It formed over less than 24 hours and perfectly supports your preselected course of action. Other admins and users don't see the "strong support" you assert, or the AFD would have closed a merge, to name an example. I won't reply further here. Please continue the discussion at Talk:Adult-child sex#Merge. --Ssbohio 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place. Bring it up at the talk page although it is clear that many people disagree with your perception. There is no question, as reflected by the drv, that the afd closure left room open for a merge, and your lone opposition, especially here, isn't likely to change that consensus, and if the consensus is for merge that is what will likely happen. And admin votes don't count for more on afd than non-admin votes as you appear to imply. Please use the talk page to say why you oppose the merge, and please don't base it on what you perceive of my behaviour,

SqueakBox

04:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

At least we agree that this is the wrong place, as I said twice. I equated admins and users. I didn't set one higher than the other. You attempt to tar me with words I never said. I've opposed your actions in this, but I mostly agree with you & respect you. This isn't personal. It's about consensus & avoiding

conflict. --Ssbohio

04:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are having difficult communications,

dispute resolution options. It doesn't seem like blocking or protection is needed here. - Jehochman ^Talk

05:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a revert war; I've page protected while a discussion can be built on the talk page. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 06:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I can see where SqueakBox is coming from here, the term "adult-child sex" as distinct from paedophilia or child sexual abuse has no obvious currency outside of the very tiny pro-paedophilia activist community. But this is the wrong place. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This series of insults, Where ThuranX refers to TonySidaway as acting like a "jerk" and states "Many wikieditors know what kind of guy Tony Sidaway is, so you don't need to do anything, he shows it himself."...seems rather insulting and a violation of

03:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO's got it in for me. He can't let go of a LONG past AN/I where I really let my opinion of him be known, he's said since that he won't rest until I'm blocked, and on and on. Any time I speak out against his rampant Wikilawyering and incivility, he brings up that diff. He'll bring it up here quite soon and demand justice for that too. Further, I specifically stated in the diff he lists that that was my thoughts about Tony's actions, and was an opinion shared by others, just read up on that thread above. If Tony doesn't like it, he can speak up, but does he really need MONGO fighting his battles for him? Finally, I note that this was in an effort to de-escalate another AN/I thread, which only cranks up the irony meter. ThuranX 04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)ThuranX calling TonySidaway a jerk is highly innappropriate. However, i believe that the issue was resolved (see thread above) where all Tony, Giano and Thuranx heard what they don't like. Also, bringing a warning you got 3 months ago as a parallel is unnecessary. So whether all the involved of tonight story would be blocked for disruption or none of them. It is not name calling which is the problem but the lame, childish behavior and unnecessary drama. I see that you already informed ThuranX about this thread so it would be better to let him come here to hear that he's asked to not do it again. Can we process this way w/o drama MONGO? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack, barely, inappropriate, kind of. What should I be done about it, well "ThuranX, please don't call people jerks, even in the passive tense, thank you". Problem solved.

1 != 2

04:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup...so long as he refrains from that line of conversation, he'll be fine.--MONGO 06:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe he got and accepted my message and that would be sufficient for now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But this is not correct at all...if anything, it is definitely the other way around[29], [30], [31], and this...what was that all about?...anyway...thanks.--MONGO 06:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But he was warned just after that MONGO. An hour or so ago. He did nothing after that! Also. Do you think someone can be blocked for inappropriate comments made on Oct. 24 and 26?! Blocks are not punitive and disputes are resolved through the DR process. What do you want admins to do? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You did all that was needed, I was just clarifying that his edit summary was not accurate and that if anything, it is the other way around...the problem now seems to be resolved...thanks.--MONGO 07:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday, Jfwg22 (talk · contribs) was blocked for repeatedly adding links to external sites which looked (at least to me, and apparently to other editors as well) as though they were blatant copyvios of various TV shows. However, as per the message left on my talk, it appears that these may be legal, paid for by advertising downloads; see, for example, Playlist or many other sources. I'm bringing this here for review: in my opinion, repeatedly adding the links after being warned is probably a bit silly, but not really grounds for an indefinite block as it does appear this was being done in good faith. Cheers --Pak21 09:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The blocking administrator initiated this review thread.--chaser - t 10:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I acknowledge that Bandurist (talk · contribs) has been making good contributions to many articles on Ukrainian music. However, I feel that it is unacceptable in his recent edits to articles concerning my native Russian region of the Kuban and my people the Kuban Cossacks. Take the article on Ukrainian language:

• 19:52, 29 October 2007
• 11:23, 30 October 2007
• 15:43, 30 October 2007

And a similar behiavour on the article of Balachka:

• 19:07, 30 October 2007
• 10:52, 31 October 2007

Pervious attempts at discussing at discussing this issue with him, including giving a suitable content of refrences were attempted at Talk:Ukrainian language#Balachka - deragotory? and Talk:Balachka, and all I got was accusations of:

• He is pushing POV which is contrary to Ukrainian scholarship in this case (that is that, according to him, only Ukrainian scholarship is trustworthy, even though I pointed out how dubious his source is)
• Once again your Great Russian chauvensim is shining bright (which per
  WP:NPA
  , comment on the content not on contributor)

I tried to get him to stop edit warring (

12:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny that User:Kuban kazak actually complained about Bandurist, since it was he, who had enjoyed provoking him. As I mentioned several times to Kuban, if he considered it to be Russian, he should have moved it from an article about Ukrainian language to an article about the Russian language. Instead, he was so engrossed in

WP:BATTLE that ignored my numerous pleas to do so and to stop the confrontation.[32][33][34] I think the article should be protected until both sides find an acceptable compromise, and most importantly present sources to back their assertions in the article. --Hillock65

12:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed a

Kuban Cossack

12:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Take one look at the block logs of the two users involved, and that will clear much of this up. Ostap 14:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  Block logs and persistant

  Kuban Cossack

  14:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• ChrysJazz (talk · contribs) - indef
• 77.49.178.72 (talk · contribs) - one month (his IP, also used)

User was using Wikipedia pretty much solely for self-promotion of his extreme fringe theories. Be sure to check out the deleted contributions. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good move. A relentless self-promoter. He's also probably skewed several articles on plays and essays by

Folantin

16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Even the stuff that wasn't deleted was a POV mess (particularly the Camus stuff Folantin pointed out). Good block.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Folantin

16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good block; now prepare the semi-protect button for the deluge... MastCell ^Talk 16:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Righteous block. Another user bringing
  Real Soon Now. Guy (Help!
  ) 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd bring this up and see what people think. Vhayste is a videogame FAQ writer and it strikes me that his user page is essentially a huge 'Look at me!' soapbox. Admittedly, he says he's been featured in sites and magazines (which would make him notable) and, considering he's writing about himself (which is generally considered conflict of interest) he seems to be staying fairly neutral in describing himself. There's also the fact that his only edits have been to his talk page. I was just wondering: is this no harm no foul or is he doing something he shouldn't? HalfShadow 17:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. I left a nice note and a redlink. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we've got a group of Penn State faculty who think an awful lot of themselves and their organizations. They've been on a bit of a self-serving article creation spree these last few days. I don't think it's appropriate to delete them out of hand, but I'm wondering, should I list them in a single AfD or nominate them individually? Asterisk indicates already nominated(*) by me or others. Other editors have flagged some of these for notability. Here's the list:

• Christopher Hoadley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• International Society of the Learning Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brian K. Smith‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• International Conference of the Learning Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Prasenjit Mitra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)*
• John W. Bagby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Steve B. Sawyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Guoray Cai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John M. Carroll (information scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jim Jansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dongwon Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Carleen Maitland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Madhu Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Frank Ritter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mary Beth Rosson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• James Z. Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)*
• John Yen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rklawton 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I added additional links that may be useful. --Ali'i 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd list them individually and note possible COI and votestacking as it occurs (and reviewing the existing AFDs I think it will).--Isotope23 ^talk 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I agree; professors at the same university could very easily have wildly varying merits towards notability. Unlike, say, several people whose only possible claim to such is being in the same band. Someguy1221 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to the others, but Jack Carroll (John M. Carroll (information scientist)) is very well known and widely cited in the related fields of HCI and technical writing (would that he was paid more attention), an article for whom was on my to-do list. The user who contributed that (Bobdoyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) did a bunch of work in technical-writing related articles (not Carroll-centric, as far as I can see) and I don't think had anything to do with the other Penn profs. So, to the extent that there is or may be the pro-Penn-push you describe, I don't believe the Carroll article is related. So to answer your actual question - nominate individually. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

On checking the contrib histories of many of the very recently submitted articles most (not Carroll or John Yen) were submitted by users who only worked on that one article. This looks like a classic class assignment scenario. Rklawton: do you have any actual evidence, bar your own supposition, that this isn't over-eager students but rather "a group of Penn State faculty who think an awful lot of themselves and their organizations" as you claim? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Some. If you check Mitra's AfD page, you'll see one of his peers defending his article. He also created the Society article. However, you raise a good point. Some of the newly created accounts look more like student accounts. I didn't check to see if any of these were copy/paste jobs from the PSU website, but they might be. Rklawton 20:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The wild assertion that PSU professors have "been on a bit of a self-serving article creation spree these last few days" clearly lacks any sound evidence (beyond the single case) as McWalter accurately points out. Regarding the multiple entries: as a commenter noted on the James Z. Wang board "Articles should not be removed because they were created by interested parties, they should be deleted because they are non-notable, and I think this guy is notable enough". I wrote the initial draft of the John Bagby article and am merely an interested student in his work - the claim of a rampant self-serving wikipedia rush by PSU professors is a bit premature. treypsu 00:06, 30 October (UTC)

I have examined many of the articles, --not all--and the ones I have examined are clearly written to a formula. A paragraph about their prior degrees and schools, which is fine, a rather gushy paragraph about their work, which needs removal of adjectives, a list of the most important journal titles they have contributed to, which is not customary content here, references to some important papers and books, which would certainly be fine if it a/did not contain too many papers, b/ was not repeated several times in the article, a mention of some that are very highly cited, also fine, except they do not give a source for this (the usual one of course is web of Science) then a list of usually non-notable awards, and finally some external links miscalled references. The wording is very similar in detail for at least some of the articles. I assume it is a specific project. I assume this in particular because they are not PSU profs in general, but rather all or almost all from the school of information science --Some of them have made comments to me, and I have replied as you can see by my comments on my talk page. I decline to judge whether it is one person editing under multiple names, or a coordinated effort.

As mentioned above, some are unquestionably notable , and even the associate professors are some of them very probably notable, so I don't think immediate AFDs are in order. There is after all no rule against COI--though when it occurs to this extent it is certainly a nuisance straightening it out. I have the name of the public relations people at the College there, and I intend to speak to them tomorrow directly to explain why this approach was not a good idea. I have done this for several academic departments and schools within universities already, and gotten good results about 2/3 of the time. (I think I know how to get their attention effectively) My approach to this is based on Durova's, as taught to me by her splendid WP:BFAQ. Perhaps we should try doing a somewhat more specialized one, as this sort of situation recurrs every month or two. . I'll report back here after I speak to people at the college tomorrow. DGG (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a very useful approach. Rklawton 13:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BFAQ is indeed fine (mentioned again so it's linked :) ... Say DGG, would you consider writing up your approach, and what you do that seems to work well? Possibly with some sample letters? We have boilerplate letters for other things (notably asking for permissions) which are helpful.. ++Lar: t/c

15:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

Where these are coming from: Just found this page. The posts are all students in my class--I asked them to find notable people in information sciences and write them up, with links to relevant disciplines, theories, concepts, and key software (such as citeseer) and was planning to assign additional posts to work on key theories and concepts in information sciences. There is no marketing agenda here, and the students are selecting the topics of their bios. They were due Monday, and students are required to make comments on each others' postings and try to improve them. I'm open to whatever people think will improve the situation, but honestly I have to say I'm pretty floored by this discussion. The intent was to get students involved in building out what is a weak area in wikipedia, try to do substantive linking among the theories and disciplines that constitute ischools where they would have to learn something, and to get feedback from the world and not just me or one or two peers. Personally, I don't think all their pages are particularly good but they seem like honest first attempts and was looking forward to improving them. Instead, I get the impression that some people think COI means you can never write about institutions, people, or ideas you know well, or else you're presumed to have an agenda, that people assume the worst possible motives, and that recruiting people to contribute to wikipedia and debate each others' articles is likely to be labelled votestacking. I had all of them read the About, the Contributing to Wikipedia article, First steps article, New contributors help page article, and What wikipedia is not, plus three articles I thought would be useful models: Barry Wellman, Don Norman, and Bonnie Nardi (i.e., dozens of pages of material as prepwork.) I'm not a wikipedia longtimer or regular contributor, and so perhaps these were not the ideal pages to suggest, but if the goal is to recruit content creators, things have to be simpler (or at least more cordial). I'm late for class now, and may not be able to log in until tomorrow, but suggestions are welcomed. Worst case, I'll have them blank all the pages and we'll take our coursework elsewhere, but I thought this was going to be win-win. So much for 'be bold'. Cmhoadley 16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone meant to accuse you or your students of anything; the sudden appearance of so many articles, all from Penn State and all about PSU-related topics, just seemed like a sudden attempt at self-promotion from members of the faculty. While I'm not an admin, nor do I even claim to be anywhere NEAR fully up to date on Wiki policies, I don't believe there's a major problem here. However, perhaps you should recommend that your students create Wikipedia accounts (if they don't already have them) and that each one should create and edit his article in his account's User: space instead of Wikipedia mainspace? From what I've seen, developing a prototype of a new article and getting it up to the basic Wiki standards is considered an appropriate use of User: space. (It also, if you give a similar assignment to another class in the future, probably result in far less chance of overreaction on the part of other Wiki users who see the sudden arrival of all the new pages.) Rdfox 76 17:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I went through and added EducationalAssignment tags to all the ones listed above that are (to my knowledge) created by my students. Several have been deleted already; I have lined up a wikipedia administrator to visit class and brief students on how to contribute most helpfully. The course assignment includes revision and suggestions from others. However, some students have already basically freaked out, and all of them don't know whether it's appropriate to post on talk pages, AfDs, make edits, or not. I won't see them until Monday and am likely to be offline until then. I have had to give everyone blanket permission to complete the assignment offline if they choose because some are really upset--not because their work was harshly criticized (they're in grad school, they're used to that), but because they feel like they aren't welcome or that there are millions of rules they are not aware of, even after reading tons of help pages and trying their best. There have apparently been some rather personal angry emails, of the 'we know who you really are' sort. I can't in good faith force my students into a harassing environment. Plans for the rest of the term included trying to get them making articles on concepts that link people and multiple disciplines, but I'm inclined to think wikipedia is NOT the place for courses. Cmhoadley 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe more visibility is needed for Wikipedia:School and university projects. There also is a template for marking articles. (SEWilco 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

I appreciate this suggestion immensely. The EducationalAssignment tag was based on a first skim of this page. The page DEFINITELY needs more visibility, in my opinion. Especially after having surfed around for hours looking for something like this. Perhaps a link off any of the ones I was able to find above. Cmhoadley 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If these are to be nominated, I strongly discourage a mass nomination; some of these guys may prove out to be notable despite the formulaic drafts now there. Mass nominations usually end with no consensus because those who comment do not often differentiate among the various articles at issue. Try them separately if you're inclined to go that route. Carlossuarez46 03:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an editor wants to delete a user account that is using his real name per

21:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we keep it in the category, but remove the notice? Would that work? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what is the rationale for removing the notice. That account was a confirmed sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinetely. So that notice, in all relevance, must stay there.

WP:VANISH

doesn't support removing indef block templates.

Please refer Right_to_vanish meta wiki page. It clearly states,

In particular, if a user abuses their Right to Vanish, then it may be declined on a future occasion. In some cases (typically when a person with a history of misconduct or blocks also has a legitimate request), a connection may remain back to the old name, for administrative use only.

I hope this clarifies. Moreover, unless the user discloses that is real name, no one would know that fact. User:Wiki Raja did not have to disclose this information. It was unnecessary, and using that as the route to remove his sockpuppet page is not acceptable. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense now, cheers - on second thoughts, the policy is quite clear on the matter - all the same, I'd bring it here rather than reverting any more, just to make it legit and final. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to fix to; one can just delete the talk page, and the user page, then re-create the userpage with the template. His identity is protected, but everyone still knows which sockpuppet he used. --Haemo 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I did that. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Can some admin bring this into action? Already an IP has started again the reverting the user page. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 23:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that IP was me. I was using IE instead of Firefox and did not see that it was not signed on. Though it automatically logs in. Watchdogb 23:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work, looks like this dispute is fini. --Haemo 18:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this dispute is not finished. This is a breech on my privacy by having my name floating around Wikipedia for other editors to abuse! Wiki Raja 05:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Take it to

WP:OVERSIGHT, thanks Taprobanus

13:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Thanks for the advice. Wiki Raja 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

03:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but who is Throwawayarb a puppet of? SchmuckyTheCat — Preceding undated comment added 03:30, October 30, 2007

Unfortunately no checkuser connection was found to any earlier accounts; ThrowawayArb was the earliest the CUs were able to trace back (likely due to checkuser data going stale after 30 days). While it seems very clear that Throwawayarb is a repeat offender, unfortunately we're not quite sure who at this point. :/ --

⟲

03:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What was the nature of the abuse? The user didn't hide that he was User:MusingsOfAPrivateNature and User:Semiprivatemusings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What they didn't mention, however, is that they trolled the Attack sites RfAR as CManW and Throwawayarb, not to mention any prior accounts they may have used before the checkuser data went stale. --

⟲

05:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Are the diffs you listed what MOASPN was blocked for? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd note that these usernames were kind of intended to mimic / mock / annoy me, El_C previously blocked User:MusingsOfAPrivateNature and User:Semiprivatemusings on this basis. Privatemusings 10:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad usernames are a reason to block the usernames, not the user. Regarding the diffs that Krimpet lists, in one the user quotes a site that everyone insists is not an attack site,[35] and in the other he admits to using a sock account in order to make what might be a controversial proposal. Are quoting a non-attack site or using a sock to make a proposal sufficient grounds for an indefinite ban without warning? If so I don't think those standards are properly reflected in the current policy pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to put words in anyone's mouth, I suspect the fundamental reason was "user not here to work in good faith with others to build an encyclopedia". This has precedent of course. Privatemusings 11:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good reason but I'm not sure that all editors know that using a sock puppet to make controversial proposals and link to non-attacks sites without making useful mainspace edits is considered sufficient cause for an indefinite block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Making edits to a heated arbitration case followed by a trollish comment about being a "throwaway account" on a "stolen wide-open hotspot that is miles from where I live. Block me forever!" is fairly clearly trolling behavior. And comments like this — where the sockpuppet actually addressed one of the participants in the dispute by their full name, and POINTedly linked to one of the alleged attack sites, all on the same RfAR — would never have been tolerated on a user's main account. It seems clear that the person behind these sockpuppets has been using them to troll discussions they were already involved in while avoiding flak on their good-hand main account. --

⟲

19:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realized that Throwawayarb had linked to a site for the purpose of outing and harassing another editor. I agree that that's a proper reason for blocking. I also agree that it's questionable when an editor uses a sock account to deflect criticism away from his main account. Anyone who engages in such behaviors should be blocked. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• (outdent) There are ways and means of doing this. If someone is open with the arbs about who they are and why they don't want to drag their main account into a cesspit RFAR then I think that's perfectly fair. I don't think that's what happened here. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, am an editor happy to see Jimbo's new 'less crap allowed' policy being enforced more often... twice in one night, in fact. ThuranX 00:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please correct this? I removed unsourced

21:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I agree with what the admin did. Yes the content needs referencing , but it is entirely mundane content.BLP states "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material [should be removed]" A quick look at the internet movie database confirmed that the content was likely accurate. I don't know why you removed it in the first place! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

IMDb has been proven not to be a reliable source Theresa. It is contributed by users, just like Wikipedia, and generally not vetted by a third party. I thought this was common knowledge. The material is very much contentious and remains to be WITHOUT A FUCKING RELIABLE SOURCE.

Burntsauce

21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it sounds like you're making it contentious by getting all hot and bothered by it. Is he not related to the people it says he's related to? Did he not announce something about a side project? This is not exactly an

Armenian Genocide level of contentiousness - it's a band member. —Wknight94 (talk

) 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC) You do know that BLP policy was formed to prevent harm to living people! I am aware that the IMDB is not a reliable source. Hence the world "likely" but contentios does not mean something that you disagree with, Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Theresa sums up my position. Nothing to see here. A quick look at this user's talk page shows a tendency to cause disruptions to make a

point. — Ocatecir^T

22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! what drama. I suppose the issue is resolved now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd time to quit, he's currently a party in an arbitration case. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For crying out loud! I mean, seriously,

! 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone ought to remind User:Kscottbailey to not troll in situations like this. That's an experienced editor throwing acetone on the Mapp torch, that ought to be an autoblock for 24 to prevent him from agitating more. He knows better, and removed Theresa's apology note. ThuranX 22:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

DoneTheresa Knott | The otter sank 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Kscottbailey for 24 hours for disruption and trolling. He had been blocked for harassment only 2 weeks ago. Crum375 22:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked him. Reasons on his talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to the parties involved, the irony on this one is so thick you couldn't cut it with a machete. SirFozzie 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I disagree with the removals, I agree that the admin should not have protected the page. I suspect that Burntsauce is upset because he and his friend Alkivar is getting criticized over similar behavior at ArbCom. We should be consistent. You do not use admin tools to get your way in a content dispute. -Chunky Rice 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the irony part I was referring to above. Agreed that this is.. well.. not a bad use of the tools, but at least a pretty grey area. SirFozzie 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a content dispute. Burntsauce was trying to use BLP to remove most of an article. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many interpertations, and although Burntsauce and I have had a run in about this, I will try to hunt down the last time this happened, where he was told that he was exactly right in his interpertation, especially as it pertained to BLP. In this, he may be acting in good faith. More later when I find it. SirFozzie 22:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the section I can find after a quick search. The policy, as interpreted by the folks who post at

The Biography of Living People's Talk Page seemed to be quite clear.. that if it's an article about a living person, and a statement that is unsourced is removed, then before it's re-added, it needs to be sourced. I'm not sure 100% I agree with it (It is better then trying to get a definition of what's "contentious"), but there it is. Burntsauce is working on the policy as it's been explained to him. SirFozzie

22:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and given the history, I kind of agree. However, this is also the main argument being presented at ArbCom - It wasn't a content dispute, I was just enforcing policy regarding content. To me that's a pretty thin line to walk. -Chunky Rice 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating what's already been said, it's best that an administrator not edit a page then immediately protect it, or in fact take any administrative actions regarding a content dispute they're involved in - even if the content dispute is as simple as reverting what looks like a contentious deletion. That is indeed one of the claims involved in the Alkivar arbitration, in which Burntsauce is heavily involved. I was actually blocked on a 1RR for restoring similar content that Burntsauce had deleted by an administrator who took Burntsauce's side, hence my restoring the content and not Burntsauce's deletion was a behavior issue. If it's a content issue, it's a content issue on both sides, both the deletion and the restoring. If we turn it into a behavior issue (other than edit warring), we behavioralize every edit someone wants to make if they can point to a content policy on the subject. Anyway, to avoid these grey areas and claims of irony/hypocrisy it's best to: (1) Warn Burntsauce for contentious editing, (2) ask another uninvolved admin to look at it with a fresh pair of eyes, and/or (3) be patient and work it out on the talk page. Burntsauce indeed said he quit [36] and is up for indefinite blocking in the Alkivar case here. For what it's worth, I think User:Kscottbailey is making a personal attack on Burntsauce more than trolling, but that's a technical distinction and either way it's inappropriate. Even so, blocking Kscottbailey without notice seems quite harsh, except that the admin who did so apparently has seen some history with this user's misbehavior so I trust his/her judgment. Wikidemo 22:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No Burntsauce, you've just

(Moe Epsilon) 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth the issue is raised, and I just commented, on the Arbitration workshop page. Moe, what's with the anonymous account, retiring from Wikipedia and gratuitous use of "u"? Wikidemo 23:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you mind your own business WikiDemo. 68.218.183.106 (Moe Epsilon) 23:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant that in a friendly and collegial way, Moe E, but if it's a sensitive topic, sorry.Wikidemo 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

True, it is. Apology not needed, thank you anyways. 68.218.183.106 23:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you are or are not Moe Epsilon, civility is expected of all editors. Corvus cornix 01:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't uncivil Corvus. 68.218.183.106 03:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah you were. HalfShadow 03:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was uncivil. ThuranX 03:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, like you can do anything anyways. Bug off. 68.218.183.106 04:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've written an essay which, as it happens, covers precisely this sort of behavior: WP:VPACT. If anyone would like to improve it, go ahead —Random832 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, anyone can removed unsourced information regardless of BLP issues. You should never restore unsourced information without first sourcing it once it has been challenged. It is that simple.

1 != 2

14:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not true. It's just fine to restore unsourced information. The only time it shouldn't be restored is if there is a legitimate, bona fide challenge to the validity of the information. Information deleted as some kind of

WP:POINT, deletion campaign, vandalism, or where sourcing is cited as a matter of wikigaming, should be restored summarily and without any further ado. Editors like Burntsauce cause no end of mischief and mayhem here, and we shouldn't enable their pranks by saying that policy is behind them. Wikidemo

20:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Threats

here and here SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 02:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for 1 week. Feel free to review and adjust as you see fit. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 02:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm just wondering how this person found my autograph book. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm suspecting through the 'sign!' note in your signature. I am absolutely not supporting any threat, but you *may* also wish to consider that autograph books have nothing to do with the writing of an encyclopedia, and are frequently nominated for deletion as a violation of
  WP:NOT#MYSPACE.--Thespian
  05:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted the two posts. And I think Thespian's probabaly right about how he found it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• My money is on it being 65.247.55.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (compare the WHOIS for 65. to the location 12. gave in the second deleted comment). SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 06:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Completely different state (NJ for 12.xxx vs VA). -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Thespian re the signature subpage. The simple obvious reason is this "would've-beeen-avoided" incident. I had doubts to whether support or be neutral at Thespian RfA but i've just taken my decision now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, they've moved onto my talk page. And I was also a little right in assuming that the comments left yesterday (now deleted) by 12.174.138.235 was related to 65.247.55.12 (aka Bwjs) per this comment. This one may need to be oversighted. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this thread before - the report's been at AIV for some time, and it will definitely need oversight. Acroterion _(talk) 18:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never understood the point of autograph books on wikipedia. I'd remove it if I were you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The nation of Qatar is requesting an unblock. Normally I avoid wheel-warring very well, but the blocking admin doesn't seem to be online, and, well, the last time, we got to be on the news and everything. Shall we unblock Qatar? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarify, please. Are you saying that the IP address used is the shared IP address of a whole country? I suppose as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Qatar, I would have to say something to the effect such an action would be absolutely required for freedom of speech, unfair silencing of a whole nation, blah blah blah. I just have some trouble believing the whole country shares the single IP address. John Carter 15:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wow, so that is basically the editing address for 50% of a whole country, that seems pretty unlikely. As for the unblock, i think that since the situation has been changed by the IP requesting an unblock, you wouldn't be reverting/wheel-warring, with the blocking admin, you would be performing a new action, not a revert.--Jac16888 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, don't unblock. They have the money for a second ip. Even a third one! El_C 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Netsnipe has reduced the block to 3 months and asked for an emailed un-block request--Jac16888 15:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the IP for the entire country via Qatar Telecom, for anyone who isn't aware. AFAIK blocks or unblocks have to go through the Foundation or Jimbo, as per

iridescent

15:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Everybody remember this fun bit of publicity? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not the same IP that we made the news for earlier this year. Maybe they did step it up to a few IPs... --Onorem♠Dil 15:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Sensitive IP addresses lists 82.148.97.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as Qatar's only IP, but this one is 82.148.96.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I guess they have more than one after all. I'll leave a message at m:Communications committee/Notifications anyways. Picaroon (t) 15:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

People can still register while the block is in effect, right? So individuals can register, log in, and edit. What are blocked are anonymous editors, not anonymous readers. (SEWilco 15:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

I removed the block and contacted the blocking admin via email to explain why I did it. Since Qatar filters through 2 IPs, the collateral on that block is too extensive. My reading of policy is the same as Iridescent's and if for some reason I got this completely wrong, I assume someone will let me know and I personally would not see it as a

WP:WHEEL situation if someone boldly overrules me on policy grounds.--Isotope23 ^talk

15:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering the circumstances, I have no objection to the reversal of my block. While the IP address was close to the one listed on

Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses & MediaWiki:Blockiptext to reflect the new IP for Qnet. Caknuck

15:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The mystery is solved — it seems Qatar now has more than one telecoms company. —

iridescent

16:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SInce this appears to be a valid IP for a country, the IPs talk page should have a notice at the top about it. If I knew where the template was, I'd do it myself. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:82.148.97.69 has a notice than can probably be adapted, minus the reference to the press section. Caknuck 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have had a message saying that I have vandalised

16:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have an email or IRC account linked to your wiki account, change the password for that too. Also, consider using a

committed identity as a safeguard in case this happens again and somebody does serious damage. Cheers, east.718 at 16:52, 10/31/2007

Stupid question but did you definitely not make this edit? —

iridescent

16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that is even vandalism or a simple mistake? 70.247.252.101 20:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)The previous edit was made be me, as I forgot to sign in Digital^Ninja 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For more than two months

]. He also has shown strong incapacity to write in intelligible english.

Azukimonaka accused me of falsifying sources on three different articles while I was just proposing a simple and clear reference (with page number) to well-known history book. On Comfort women [[38]], on Manchukuo [[39]] and on Eugenics in Showa Japan [[40]]

Those accusations were so weird and misplaced that User:StuartLaJoie and User:ZayZayEM, users that I do not know, felt the need to took my defense [[41]] [[42]]

User:Azukimonaka is now starting a fourth edit war on

.

I ask the intervention of administrators to give serious warning to User:Azukimonaka and to prevent him from disturbing editing. --Flying tiger 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the 21 October complaint of User:ZayZayEM against User:Azukimonka [[43]]--Flying tiger 18:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I support a request for a Temporary Block against this user for repetitive disruptive and tendanacious editing. I will be supporting FlyingTiger in generating a Request For Comment about this users actions and the appropriate action for the community to follow.

I have a bit of a problem...a user has added histories from media website VARTV.com as part of many articles. There could be more, I am not sure. Would someone please looks over his contribs and check them out to make sure. I am sure these are good-faith edits, but they are verbatim copies of histories on VARTV.com. Many thanks....NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There were more copyvio edits made by the user reported above. I have done my best to remove the copyvios, but some remain as they are "buried" under other edits. If an admin could please take a look, I would appericate it. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this user's rampant vandalism! This user continually is blanking whole articles on wikipedia. Blatant vandalism on the black metal page and others. They have been blocked before. Navnløs 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week by User:Haemo. Hut 8.5 21:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This guy is obviously not going away. He's been banned again and again under many accounts, usually vandalizing ULL, Talk:ULL and Talk:Cat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ULL&diff=168249995&oldid=167136828 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ULL&diff=167123707&oldid=152803867 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ULL&diff=152803739&oldid=146899396 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ULL&diff=146891969&oldid=146891381 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ULL&diff=145338706&oldid=144334192 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ULL&diff=138023718&oldid=136317562

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ULL&diff=163028208&oldid=152802378 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ULL&diff=144334140&oldid=142209169

The list goes on and ON. Look for yourself.

Please, some more permanent action must be taken.--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 19:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What type of action are you suggesting? You've said he's be banned again and again under many accounts. Obviously he has a dynamic IP, and short blocks are appropriate. I call troll, and I think the best thing to do is block him again for 48h and hopefully he will loose interest for awhile. 70.247.252.101 20:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)the following was added by me, as I forgot to sign in Digital^Ninja 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User has stopped inserting spam links, and is being watched. Digital^Ninja 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is spamming again after a final warning. It's not current, so reporting on AIV is inappropriate. [44] John 20:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added him to my watch list and will keep an eye on his edits. Any additional spamming will be reverted. I've also made him aware of the same. If he continues, I'll alert an admin to block if necessary. Digital^Ninja 20:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody please delete and salt About: GARA Satellite Radio Inc. Founder & Company? It's been deleted four times already as an ad, and it's pretty egregiously spam. The User keeps recreating it. Corvus cornix 22:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted most recently by User:Number 57, added to WP:PT by me. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, several times over the past couple of days, I have noticed User talk:The JPS (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) has been vandalized several times by a sockpuppeteer. It gets protected, but as soon as the protection expires, he pounces again. This has been going on for a long time now. He has a dynamic IP, so maybe a rangeblock would be in order? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I rangeblocked it for 3 hours the other day[45]. Need another? - Alison ^❤ 00:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It'd be nice if the range wasn't so huge, so he could be blocked for longer. Like, several months. Enough to get him bored so that he'd go away. Because he's been around far, far too long. Gscshoyru 00:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not just leave it protected? He appears to only be using a random IP anyway; problem solved. HalfShadow 00:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Made an abuse report

Wikipedia:Abuse reports/JPS vandal, maybe this could do something. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake

) 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of this going on for months -- any references to the "badger vandal" are him as well, and he has lots and lots of sleepers, some going back to April... so just some info to use when compiling this report. Gscshoyru 00:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming this is the same vandal as the one attacking The JPS on this board a day or two ago, it's very likely Pope Benjamin Lister (talk · contribs)/Solvelove (talk · contribs). Picaroon (t) 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bishopicof (talk · contribs) is an obvious COI editor for the International Circle of Faith, and from perusing his edits, it would seem nearly every edit he has made is to paste links for or otherwise mention his organization on various Christianity related articles. The group itself is up for AFD, but regardless, I wasn't at all sure what relevance his organization has to any of the articles he is editing, as this is a subject I have never dabbled in before. So, I'm just posting here to inform anyone who might be interested in checking out his edits. Someguy1221 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also a self-admitted role account [46]. Someguy1221 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure this is really something warranting immediate action, but this IP seems to be being used solely for a single purpose of vandalizing fictional-character articles with a bizarre little mini-narrative about some "bandit who wants to defeat Surya." This has been going on at a slow rate for at least two months now; the user reduced the rate at which this stuff was being done following a 12-hour block for vandalism early in September, but looking at the contributions history, even since the rate reduction, they're still at it, with no constructive edits that I could see. Maybe this is something someone needs to keep an eye on? Rdfox 76 00:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you've warned the user appropriately, so if it continues, just report to

WP:AIV and the appropriate actions will be taken, though an edit review does suggest a primarily-vandalism account. Admin opinion on this? Arakunem^Talk

01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

IP User Abusive Comments

Please see [47] contributes, opinion and verbal abuse. See my talk page for their most recent diatribe. Can they please be blocked at least for a "cooling off" period.

02:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also needs a suggestion to register. The editor seems to have a seriously problematic style of editing. He's beyond assertive into aggressive in his summaries and so on. There's a tone of 'challenge me on the speculations i'm adding, i dare you'. ThuranX 03:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I dropped a note on their page about civility and creating an account. I think a block at this point would be

WP:BITEy. Dppowell

04:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They have a ton of edits and have been around for a while (2 months). The majority of their edits are spoilers and attacking. I would think more is appropriate. "LISTEN UP" and accusations of not watching a show before editing is personal attacks, not a newbie learning.

CelticGreen

04:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They'll know now that attention has been called to their behavior; they should get a chance to cool it before we start throwing blocks around. Dppowell 04:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to a {{helpme}} and found this. The editor responded with another post that could read as

) 04:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I defer to a more senior admin on how or whether there needs to be a response to the talk page content, but I don't see any vandalism edits in the very brief contribs list. Dppowell 04:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

How does this sound for a new policy : WP:Wikipedia is not your own personal counseller. Seriously though, perhaps it would be a good idea to actually just talk to the user about, erm something, rather than just giving them a generic message.--Jac16888 04:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake regarding the vandal only account. This diff seemed off to me, but I should probably AGF. (Which should also probably applies to my response, but I was worried about feeding a troll, so I went for a generic method). I'll leave a more detailed note now though. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say that, he looks like a legit editor so far. I recommend that a message just be left on his talk page, something along the lines of, "sorry about your situation blah blah, leave it to the police, blah blah, gently point out that there isn't really anything we can do to help him etc etc"--Jac16888 04:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just did something along those lines. If someone else wants to drop a note, feel free though :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, hopefully that will get a positive response (or any response)--Jac16888 04:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, i would just let it be. Does not really constitute vandalism, looks like a fairly decent contributor so far, would do as stated above. Tiptoety 04:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure how relevant this is, but Ivan Milat is apparently the name of an Australian Mass-Murderer.--Jac16888 04:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy Toledo. I sure didn't need to read that right before bed... Dppowell 05:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, just thought i should point out this possible co-incidence, if it is one (User name is that of mass murderer, user wants to kill neighbour)--Jac16888 05:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It says he is in for life....i hope he hasn't broken out..... lol...Tiptoety 05:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked this guy as a username violation (taking the name of a mass murderer) and protected his talk page. This seems like clear trolling to me, (with his last use of {{

05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User Allen1221 has been repeatedly defacing articles despite reversions and warnings by other editors. He has continually ignored these warnings, and blanks his talk page when notified.

— Yama 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Report user to

WP:AIV Tiptoety

05:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This user was indefinitely blocked by myself earlier this year after multiple breaches of the 3RR. I unblocked them to participate in the arbitration over liancort rocks which was recently closed. A condition of the unblock was that they would comply with a strict 1RR. Since then they have received multiple warnings (see their talk) and have been blocked twice. I feel that they are not improving as an editor and following the most recent discussion [48] at AN3 concerning their most recent block I feel that enough is enough. I would very much appreciate feedback on whether we should now reinstate the indef block.

18:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please block the user indefinitely. Positive things can be said about this user, and I have not lost good faith completely. However -- as Spartaz says enough is enough. Ultra-nationalistic users such as the one mentioned here (and another one who has been banned for a year) have done an incredible amount of damage in the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese history and culture articles. Honest editors should not have to put up with the ultranationalist cabal that has waged a totally lame war on the Korean articles of this project for 2-3 years. Users such as this have done some good things, but they have totally ruined the atmosphere in the Korean articles. On Friday Jimbo wrote that we should not have to put up with these anti-project users any longer. I think Jimbo wasreferring to users such as Goodfriend100 and several other ultranationalist disruptors. Let's take a tougher stance on the incredible amount of disruption and foolishness that takes place in the Korean articles, especially. Let's show them the door. Please forgive me for using an anon IP for this message, but as I mentioned the atmosphere is totally poisonous and has been for a looooong time -- I fear some kind of retribution on me and my contributions if I use my username here. Why should we put up with this? 74.12.78.124 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly endorse an indefblock. This user has a long-standing history of edit warring. Wikipedia should not tolerate this. I urge the community to consider this user banned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. I'll upgrade my initial block to indefinite, pending any objections.

Anthøny

19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Spartaz has a point elsewhere, and Goodfriend100 seems to indicate that s/he wasn't aware that the 1RR restriction was still in force, as the arb case was concluded. (Although it would have been smart to seek clarification of this before edit warring.) I say block Goodfriend100 for 3 days now for edit warring. Also, make it crystal clear that the 1RR restriction is continuing indefinitely (or until further notice), and, for anything other than obvious vandalism, s/he should report rather than revert. -- But|seriously|folks  20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with But Seriously Folks as per the reasons I have listed above. How many good editors have been chased away by this user and his nationalist cabal? We are long past the point at which we should give the user one more chance. This user and others like him/her are making a mockery of wikipedia and there here is no end in sight to the ongoing blatant disregard and ceaseless disrespect for Wikipedia policies and members of the wikipedia editing community. Wikipedia is not a nationalist battleground. Please re-institute the indefblock. 74.12.78.124 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has received multiple last chances, and was warned at the start of his last one-week ban that any further edit warring would result in an indef ban. Even so, he chose to edit war on one of the most controversial articles immediately. Even if he wasn't aware of the 1RR, he reverted three times on that article, and going up to immediately hit your limit for the day (without summaries, without discussion) is still not constructive editing. He is interleaving his "I've learned my lesson" comments with "I haven't done anything wrong" (which is kind of contradictory) and has done so on all of his previous blocks as well. We're into double digits on his block count now. --Cheers, Komdori 21:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page in his responses, it is painfully clear he does not consider what he did (undoing actions of other editors repeatedly) to be edit warring, and that if unblocked he would thus clearly do the same action again. Furthermore, he suggests that he was not bound by the 1RR because he was undoing vandalism (in all cases the changes clearly being a content dispute). It seems that if he were to be given an eleventh chance, he'd gladly do it all over again and we'd be back here in a few days. --Cheers, Komdori 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, but then there won't be any question that the restrictions applied. I agree, by the way, that this was a content dispute, not vandalism. -- But|seriously|folks  23:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have crossed paths with this editor several times. The last few times he was brought here for discussion of an indef block I didn't leave any comments in the hope that he truly was improving. However, I really don't see this being the case considering his actions following the expiration of each of his blocks. I would suggest the indefinite block go in place not for the most recent violation of the 1RR imposition, but for his latest example of continual editing warring and violation of

WP:OWN, as he showed his tendency to refuse changes to be put forth by others. He was very much aware that any more edit warring would land him an indefinite block, even after the arbcom case was over, since during the most recent block several actually mentioned [49] [50] [51] that to him on his talk page--at least one doing so after the arbcom case was finished. Furthermore, the editor himself offered to have an indefinite block be placed on him if he ever edit warred again. Then when his block expired, he did. —LactoseTI^T

23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You never want to get rid of the carrot for good behavior. I recommend against indefinite block. 4 months, ok. 6 months, whatever. 9 months, really? but ok. This is assuming the user does edit using full sentences and not profanity. WP6 00:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose an indefinite block, if this is in response to Goodfriend's two recent reverts at

01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to 74.12.78.124's assertion of ultranationalism - I strongly ask that the admins and editors here to take a look into articles on Goguryeo in other respectable encyclopedias and reliable sources, and perhaps you can see what's seriously wrong here. Both LactoseTI and Komdori have been making claims just recently that "Goguryeo is a part of Chinese history"[54][55], but what reliable sources back their claims? What about LactoseTI's unilateral categorization of

01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

One revert perhaps, but the second one, when knowing he was already on notice to not edit war after the anon reverted him? Then, a third as he reverts another editor after that? We've got about a dozen blocks in five months (including two with the editor on vacation), essentially all for the same reason: edit wars on the same articles. This after several administrators actually do so much hand holding as to come in and say, essentially, "Your block is about to end, here's a reminder--don't edit war again or you will be permanently banned." Blocks of increasing duration have failed to elicit a whit of change, and at this point giving more and more chances simply shows the hollowness of any further threat. Looking at his editing history I see essentially no constructive edits to any articles, just reverts or re-insertion of text that someone else reverts. If we want to avoid a permanent ban, perhaps a topic ban, such as all articles dealing with Asia. I feel bad because I think that often the editor means well, but loses self control when it comes to edits about this topic. One might say the majority of his edits are about Asia, but then so are the majority of his edits involved in edit warring. This is at least the third time we've been here discussing the appropriateness of a permanent ban for this editor. —LactoseTI^T 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Komdori's report cannot be used against me because it shows nothing about me edit warring at all. Simply undoing an anon user's deletion of text in the articles doesn't mean that I'm edit warring. I explained above (with links) that the diffs don't even match.

Also, Komdori and LactoseTI are making this into a bigger problem than it is. Instead of watching me behave for a week or two, they immediately make an excuse about a couple reverts that I did, and now they are accusing me of "edit warring", which I definitely did not do. They are twisting their comments as if I was violating policies immediately after my one week ban. That is not true. I would like to ask you to put all this up at ANI because I'm just disappointed how Komdori and LactoseTI are so bold with accusing me when they don't even have any significant proof.

LactoseTI keeps trying to hammer in that I was edit warring. I was NOT! I am really shocked at how boldly this editor lies about my reverts. ALL the reverts were isolated from each other and NONE of them had to do with the same person or the same information continuesly. Also, how can I be edit warring when I'm restoring information that was previously deleted? I know I'm starting to rant, but it makes me angry when others lie about what I did. {written by Good friend100, posted by Heimstern} 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This user is a chronic violator of 3RR. An indef or a year-long block is due for good. Tons of users have been banded for much less disruptive behavior than his. Hermeneus (user/talk) 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll describe the diffs that Komdori posted that he thought I was edit warring.

First diff shows that I undid an anon user's deletion of several important sentences in the article.

Second diff shows that I restored the word "major" to the article when describing Goguryeo as a "major regional power". It certainly was a major power, and I saw no reason for an anon to delete that so I undid that as well.

Do the diffs even include the same reverts? No. Did I repeatedly undo relevent edits without discussing? No. These two diffs are the diffs that Komdori listed on his report and frankly, his argument is extremely weak. His base of action comes only from the fact that I was on 1RR parole. However, the reverts were isolated and the report doesn't show a clear case of edit warring so the 1RR can't apply. I only reverted once on each completely separate edit. Also, some of the administrators were correct in assuming that the length of the 1RR parole was not clarified. I was aware of the 1RR parole after the one week ban. Yes, I was going to ask Spartaz about it, but then I got blocked. Good friend100 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that has lighted upon me is that I have made reverts and undid anon users' deletions in the past. Yet Komdori or LactoseTI have not taken those previous reverts to 3RR. Why? I interpret their prejudice in filing reports as a bold attempt to hammer me out of Wikipedia. Really, after the one week ban, I began to edit normally, and when I got blocked, frankly, I couldn't pull out of my head of any recent edit warring I had done out of the few edits (save

) I had made after the one week ban. But what they are trying to do is not just vigilante justice to help hunt down bad seeds. They have taken this to a personal level to indef block me, which I really see as not fair on their part. Regardless of my trail of edit warring, they should assume good faith until the last moment (that is, up to the point where I get indef banned for edit warring). For all the other blocks, they were right about me edit warring. But for this block, it isn't. The report on me is just wrong.

When I related this information to Komdori, he said he was simply keeping an eye on me, since I have been a troublemaker in the past. I agree that he can keep an eye on me, I don't mind. But picking on a couple isolated reverts and trying to formulate a ban on me using those small reverts is just going overboard. Am I ranting again? I'm sorry if you feel that I'm spitting nonsense out of my mouth. But again, wouldn't you get angry if somebody starts to talk about your conduct when they don't have hard evidence that you were breaking the rules? I'm simply trying to explain my side of the story about the diffs and all. Thank you, Heimstern, for providing a vehicle for me to get my comments through. Good friend100 19:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So where are we on this? Are admins willing to make Good friend100's block indefinite? Perhaps more importantly, are admins willing to unblock if this happens? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Indef at this time. Run him through ArbCom again (or RfC/RfM) if necessary. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking I'll take you up on that ArbCom suggestion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me to write this with my ip address but I don't want to get in a trouble to be a next prey of the notorious JPOV pushers like Komdori, LactoseT1, Endroit, Op2 and others. Their hatred feelings against Koreans have been noteworthy on every Korean related articles. They tend to suddenly jump into articles regardless of the previous discussions and start reverting edits without any consensus. If other editors requested them to add verifiable sources, they simply reject as if the other party was proclaiming completely ridiculous ideas and they were judges. With their disruptive behaviors, editors who really engaged in the article were out of the league. I also have seen them being frequent subjects of 3RR report, incident reports, and arbitration cases. They always insist that they have a NPOV and push the other party to have a KPOV, but that is a blatant lie. Since I've not seen any good contribution done by them. I think administrators shouldn't listen attentively to the people who have so many edit wars with Korean editors. If Good friend100 was really blamed to be a disruptive user, they all might be equally responsible for the blame. Their goal is to kick out Good friend100, or other Korean users out of here. Japanese editors are so eager to push their POV every wiki place.

Good friend100 has been engaging in a variety of Korean history related articles from being distorted by them. I thank him with my heart for at least one person trying to protest against the JPOV pusher's irrational behaviors. I haven't met with any of them because I have to protect myself from being a target. I object to to the idea of Good friend100 indefinitely being blocked. The JPOV editors are always skillfully getting away from any punishment, and it is very weird to me. Please mind that Japanese editors are over 9 times than Korean editors any Wiki place. In my thought, Good friend100 didn't violate 1RR patrol rule. Komdori is so cunning to take advantage of Good friend100's situation. That action can hardly refers to a good faith.--72.79.54.106 11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Once we take out the users who already have a beef with Good friend100, there does not appear to be a clear consensus for an indefinate block at this time by independant reviewers. While I fully appreciate the difficulties that this editor has caused on Korean articles the point of independant review is to ensure that a ban is fair and appropriate & I'm not seeing a clear consensus for this to be effected at this time. I'm inclined to suggest that we go back to an earlier suggestion which is to reaffirm the 1RR restriction and unblock Good friend100. If they can stick to this, then well and good and after a suitable period of good behaviour (say 6 months) they can apply on ANI to have their 1RR probation lifted. They can then reblocked indefinitely immediately they breach this probation. Does this seem a reasonable compromise that everyone can agree to? I also see no point taking this back to arbcom. The user has just been through an arbitration case and I really don't see the point of dragging this out any further. If they behave they can continue to edit. If they misbehave they get kicked immediately. it seems to me that there is nothing to adjudicate from this. I'm willing to mentor and monitor their conduct if closer oversight is required.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  11:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, I agree with your decision to give Goodfriend100 a last chance. Hopefully, Goodfriend100 will make good use of it.

Cydevil38

11:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Suggestion, not decision.
    Spartaz ^Humbug!
    12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm too close to the situation (as several other users both for and against him are, along with WPC who's handful of edits all essentially are clustered right around his comment here), I'd be happy to recuse myself. In any case, one thing that concerns me to a certain extent which I think is at the core of the issue and still has not really been addressed: he has explicitly stated that he does not believe he was edit warring, and by extension would not hesitate to edit in the same manner again. One cannot discount an edit as "unworthy" simply because it comes from an anonymous ip. To then continue by reverting Cydevl's contribution just illustrates his general attitude toward editing. To address a point of confusion of whether or not he knew his 1RR parole was still in place, he also explicitly offered to have himself blocked permanently if he ever edit warred again. After 10 blocks for edit warring over the span of a few months, he should at least know the basic definition. If not--if he gets blocked twice even after receiving "last chance, you will be blocked permanently if you edit war again" notices--there really isn't much hope. There is perhaps some lack of communication here since it seems people keep plainly stating to him that he will be blocked permanently if he acts in a certain manner again, and he keeps plainly stating that he will continue to do (and does) that very action again.

If a permanent block or topic ban are inappropriate, one suggestion might be to expand the 1RR to be 1RR collectively per day, instead of per article as it hasn't been effective (since he has received two blocks when on it already). Recently this editor has been going around hitting his 1RR limit on many articles and then stopping editing for the day, making a large percentage of the edits reverts. For someone prone to edit warring, this shouldn't be tolerated any more than someone going around and hitting their "limit" of three reverts per day. I'm not suggesting this to be vindictive (ignore the suggestion if you like), but it might give the editor pause to consider if what is being written is really worth reverting. I really don't have much of a problem with Good friend, and I think he could make some valid contributions if he can gain a bit of self-control (he edited much less disruptively before his first few blocks), but it has been tiring over the past few months to have disruption after disruption. —LactoseTI^T 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia either needs a better way to handle edit warriors or the community needs to find a way to use the existing methods better. This has gone on for far too long and will apparently be allowed to continue going on. All right, one more chance for Good friend100, but further edit warring should lead to an immediate indefblock and to arbitration if the block doesn't stand. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just one clarification: Are we in agreement that Good friend100 is in fact still under his 1RR parole? I had assumed that the parole was indefinite, much as the block that it replaced was. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I wouldn't even think about unblocking without this in place. I'm going to leave this up a little longer before enforcing this.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

robertchristgau.com spam - 2000 links

Please review this collection of over 2000+ outbound links from Wikipedia. This person is apparently a semi-notable music reviewer, but there are dozens of notable music reviewers. On most album infoboxes, we'll list reviews from major organizations. I found an IP adding these links while doing some RC patrol, and then found all these. As we don't link to personal sites on any music reviews besides this site, shouldn't these all be removed as spam? • Lawrence Cohen 06:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• As it's the music critic's website and not my site, how can these be considered personal sites? Or do you just don't like someone having a different opinion of a band than you do? I won't say anything in favor of one view or another, but album articles should represent a world-wide view and not just blind praise of the band being reviewed. (72.153.117.99 06:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
  • As just mentioned on Cohen's talkpage,
    Christgau is a veteran music reviewer who is published online and in print, including Esquire and the Village Voice. Cohen began to arbitrarily remove links to Christgau's reviews from articles after being challenged by the above IP over accusations of vandalism and linkspamming. Posting here instead of engaging the IP in meaningful conversation (at Talk:Korn#Professional_reviews) shows an alarming tendency to forgo good faith consideration. The question whether to include links to any of Christgau's reviews is an editorial one, it can be and should be solved without administrative intervention. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩
    06:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All my dozen removals are now undone by myself, pending review here by uninvolved admins. My concern is that we apparently offer no other "personal" websites of other reviewers on these articles which I can see. So, by including robertchristgau.com in the infobox on 2000+ articles, we are by defacto giving this person weight on the level of Rolling Stone, and other major music news outlets. That seems oddly wrong, and the links look and feel like spam in this vein. • Lawrence Cohen 06:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• The same argument could be made for excluding film reviews by Roger Ebert. I think that it is difficult to make a fair judgment on these links unless you are familiar with the field of music journalism or are thoroughly acquainted with Christgau's career and the syndication of his review columns. Coincidentally, AN/I is not the best noticeboard for recruiting editors with the requisite background in dealing with music-related content disputes. I suggest you try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Whilst I would normally be wary about linking to personal review sites, given Christgau's standing in the music journalism world, I can't really see a problem with these links.
  ELIMINATORJR
  07:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• You don't get music critics more important than Christgau. These links are on the same level of importance as IMDb, BoxRec, etc. east.718 at 17:02, 10/31/2007
  • I couldn't agree more. Given Christgau's credentials, his web site can hardly be considered a "personal website". This may not be the best place for this discussion but the mass removals are unneeded.
    RxS
    21:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the confusion. I didn't initially realize the scope of respect in music journalism this fellow has, and have researched it more off of Wikipedia. Someone can tag this resolved. • Lawrence Cohen 13:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse insulted an informal mediator, Blueboar, by insinuating that Blueboar purposely sided with another user in a dispute for ulterior reasons and willingly neglected to warn another user for supposed personal attacks, and called Blueboar a hypocrite, incompetent, and "not very nice." The insults mentioned previously can be seen here: [56]. More information can be found on the rest of the article's talk page, Mattisse's talk page [57], and Blueboar's talk page [58]. - Cyborg Ninja 09:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I had a look. There really is nothing to see here.Mattisse is complaining to Blueboar that he feels he has been treated unfairly. He stroppy, and rude, but i don't think any admin action is needed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd just add that it would be great if Mattisse assumes good faith w/ Blueboar. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should remind Mattisse to

WP:AGF then, and notify him that he is violating that policy. Other users have had administrative action taken against them for such conduct, and I am merely following precedents set by your peers. - Cyborg Ninja

10:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought you've informed Mattisse of this incident (as a matter of courtesy) so he can follow up what admins think about his behavior. Anyway, i've just lef him a note. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen Mattisse do such himself. Also, Mattisse previously told me not to post on his talk page. I myself am a highly courteous individual. - Cyborg Ninja 11:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Understood. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this folks... I agree that this isn't really a situation that calls for Admin intervention.... at least not yet (I am a bit concerned about how fast the accusations are escallating - now to the point of accusing me of sock puppetry). Cyborg Ninja has put the article in question up for formal mediation, and I am more than willing to step out of the picture and let the mediation committee try to resolve things (especially since Mattisse thinks I am such a poor mediator). If things escallate further I'll let you know. Blueboar 17:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked both User:Cyborg Ninja and User:Mattisse for 24 hours. I have sanctioned Cyborg Ninja for continued harassment of Mattisse (per this), despite my previously issuing a warning, and Mattisse for the catalogue of disputes with other contributors and lack of AGF when offered assistance. I have also previously attempted to resolve both Ninja Cyborgs campaign of alerting others to Mattisse's "misdemeanours" (my quotes) and Mattisse's problems with interacting with contributors whose views differ. I am getting sick of seeing both names popping up on AN and ANI. I hope the blocks will allow both to review their recent histories, learn, and move on. Any admin is free to review my actions, and amend/cancel the sanctions as deemed appropriate. LessHeard vanU 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A note re: the diff in the last post: Mattisse has claimed in the past he (or she) is/was a grandmother. He/she is also now saying that he/she works on a oil rig. While Cyborg Ninja obviously was being ambiguous and sarcastic, it is, I think, a reasonably suspicious coincidence of claims from Mattisse.

I won't say much more, as I am currently involved in a mediation with Mattisse and so will not appear to be the most neutral of sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I keep wanting to walk away from this train wreck, only to find another reason to stay involved... He has just threatened some sort of retaliation against me for "getting him blocked" (see Mattisse's talk page). Blueboar 02:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

On a tangential matter: Mattisse seems to have created "backup" duplicate articles to preserve his POV... see:

Zaojing article... which was redirected) I am not sure if any of them should stay. Advice please, if not intervention. Blueboar

01:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse probably shouldn't be unblocked per the litany of abuses he promises if unblocked on his user talk page. 67.173.131.28 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:70.116.31.203 is on a tear through various webcomics entries attempting to speedily delete them, without rhyme or reason. It seems to me this is somebody on a vendetta against webcomics, as no attempt is made to work through proper channels. Could an administrator take a look at this and if they agree it's vandalism, block or warn them? --Martin Wisse 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

They are clearly making a

WP:POINT and if so it is vandalism. Telling you to "fudge off" when you raised the issue with them is clearly a bad sign. (Emperor

13:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

The edits are clearly being done in a

WP:POINTy way, (and are still happening), but having said that, it looks like a number of these articles do met the given criteria for speedying, take Angels 2200 for example, pure cruft, with no sources.--Jac16888

13:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

True, this use may have a point on some, but there are better ways to address these issues. --Martin Wisse 13:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, what they're doing is totally the wrong way of going about it, and because of the continued reverts, the user seems to need blocking, i just meant that as articles go, few of these actually seem worth all this hassle--Jac16888 14:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely looks like a single-issue account, trying to make a

point. I'd suggest a block.  _{Folic_Acid | talk} 

13:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Could some kind administrator block them please? They're now re-adding the speedy delete notices I've just removed and I don't want to get into a revert war. --Martin Wisse 14:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also note that an article at

slashdot.org this morning raised the issue of deleting webcomics on wikipedia. That article may have given this anon the idea. See also here. I'd agree with a block, though I'm not an admin. Just wanted to bring this information forward, particularly if this account is not the only one who gets the notion to try something like this. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow - I think you're exactly right, I'd be willing to wager that this is just a continuation of that disucssion. I'd reiterate my recommendation for a block, and that we keep an eye on these articles.  Folic_Acid | talk  14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In particular this post about a possible Delete Storm here to force a change in policy. (Emperor 14:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Agreed. I have started the rollback but he is rolling back as well. We can discuss but damnit points should be made on the talk page, not the frickin mainspace.

Spryde

14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And he just removed my AIV report.

14:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't he been blocked yet? Removing his own AIV report should definitely have been the final straw. JuJube 14:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed it twice now.

Spryde

14:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Because he isn't vandalising, that's why. Actually what exactly is he doing wrong? If they don't assert notability why don't we speedy them? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What's he doing wrong? They're trying to game the speedy delete process to get rid of a whole series of articles, either because they dislike webcomics or to prove a point about the deletion process itself. They've shown no concern about being warned, no concern about getting in a revert war, are surprisingly knowledgable about wikipedia policies for a new user and have treated to use proxies (see talk page). I'd say this is a troll and I say block them. Because the last thing we want is for somebody innocently looking through the speedy delete list to actually start deleting articles based on this person's tagging, pissing off other editors in the process. It's only pure luck one of the first articles they tried to speedily delete was on my watchlist as it is. --Martin Wisse 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he is now in 5RR on a few of them. At the very least it is disruptive editing.

Spryde

14:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting him is disruptive too though. I've invited him here to argue his case. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that this is related to the above linked slashdot item. I've removed the CSD tag from

WP:POINT issue that won't go away without a time out. Ariel♥Gold

14:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reported the user for 3RR on

the report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultraexactzz (talk • contribs

) 14:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. The individual has now gone over

WP:3RR revert warring over tags on a couple articles. I've no opinion about the merits of the speedy deletion requests, but a time out was about due here.--Isotope23 ^talk

14:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I will also say that

WP:3RR by working in tandem, but going around and removing CSD tags just because you don't agree with them on the grounds of "vandalism" is disruptive as well.--Isotope23 ^talk

14:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel a block is necessary, go ahead. Per CSD, anyone can remove the CSD tag except the creator of the article. If it is removed, it should not be added back and should be prod'ed or AFD'ed. I am ususally not one for Wikilawyering but lately it seems I have had to because lots of things are no longer making sense. I try to abide by the spirit and letter of the policies to make this a better place. A person on a tagging spree flooding CSD with many spurious notifications to make a point because of a slashdot article is one of my definitions of a vandal. There have been little to no other edits on that account. There have been accounts blocked indefinitely for less. I know what vandalism is and what vandalism is not and this by many accounts as seen by this discussion is vandalism.

Spryde

17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23, please don't be silly. Spryde and I did not "work in tandem", we both saw a vandal at work and attempted to contain their damage. Much of which would not have been done btw if this vandal had been blocked earlier. --Martin Wisse 11:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Spryde and Wisse on this. The anon was (is) malicious. A procedural 3RR block would be appropriate if 3RR was broken, as those are supposed to happen completely regardless of which side was right, but other than that, good for them. --Kizor 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I went through the IP's last 50 contributions. There were about 40 webcomics there (some repeats, some other pages) - in 3 of the 40 cases I could in good faith say "decline speedy, this has an assertion of notability". The other 90% of the time, I couldn't see the assertion of notability. The one article other than a webcomic he'd tagged (for G1) I deleted under G10. I sense someone who violated

15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked them all yet, but at first glance it does look like we'll need another delete round for the web comics. There are many notable webcomics, but there are a lot more of them that aren't notable at all, and these should go, no matter if they were

Fram

15:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've removed all the speedy delete templates, because why reward vandals? Also because I disagree about the notability of webcomics, but that's a secondary reason. If we reward trolling, trolling will increase. --Martin Wisse 16:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think one could put forth a rather compelling argument that removing those templates was rather disruptive on your part Martin. Despite your characterization of the templating as "vandalism", most appeared to be on articles that meet the criteria.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bull. It's about the process, not the content. This vandal was abusing the speedy delete procedure to hammer home a point, without regard to the quality of the articles. I've no desire to reward their behaviour by letting their work stand, even if in some cases they may have had a point. If an article needs to be removed, than the normal Wikipedia channels will suffice. --Martin Wisse 11:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is disrupting wikipedia to make a good point acceptable? If so,

WP:POINT needs updating. If not, the disruption needs to stop. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk

17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the articles for lacking any evidence of notability (and some where already tagged when I got there). Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the tagging, most were speedy candidate per CSD:A7 as making no claim of notability; and all but a couple would appear to be non-notable per

WP:WEB. I'll revisit in a week or so and anything that doesn't establish notability I will PROD or AFD; even though many are probably eligible for a speedy deletion at this point I think retagging them would be counterproductive.--Isotope23 ^talk

17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're doing something useful rather than something disruptive, you're not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If Hitler himself tags an article for speedy deletion, and it's a speediable article, we should delete it rather than remove the template just because he's Hitler. Friday (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DICK. I have no idea if this user qualifies as such, I am only noting that there are two issues here, and it is important to keep them separate. --Jayron32|talk|contribs

17:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

as some or many of them seem to be disputed here by people in good standing, then it would seem like AfD is the necessary step. The key word is indiscriminate: tagging all the articles on a given subject where some are clearly notable is not in good faith, any more than would b making articles on every conceivable one of a class of subjects where some are clearly not notable. (I have no opinion one way or another on articles on this particular subject).DGG (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD, a few at a time, is an appropriate choice for a next step (other choices exist, like PROD or a discussion at a relevant WikiProject). Not all at once - AFD nominating too many articles in a given topic area at the same time is also disruptive. "Too many" is an undefined grey area - if a group nomination works due to commonality of issue ("Band X and all albums/songs") that would be 1 AFD no matter how many articles are covered. If each needs to be considered separately, then more than five a day is in my opinion too many - for any topic area X.

GRBerry

20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as an FYI but the Webcomics Project had gone idle and the Comics Project has taken it under their wing to for the

Webcomics work group, which would be the best venue for a broader discussion and I've dropped in notes over there on the issues here. Hopefully we can get the balance right on what to include and what needs to go - although we are never going to make everyone happy. (Emperor

02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Don't forget the Wikinews article n:Wikimedia fundraiser highlights webcomic community's frustration with Wikipedia guidelines (and incidentally, if you check out the Comments on the article, the same IP made a wonderfully helpful comment in the section "I'm not donating this year"). Confusing Manifestation 01:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is subject to frequent edit warring and it has been protected dozens of times in the past under various names. Protecting the page seems to have absolutely no affect on the edit warring as it always continues immediately after it's unprotected and protecting it halts all progress made by non-edit warring parties attempting to improve it. I propose that if the edit warring continues then the page be subject to a 1 revert per week rule, where if ANY editor administrator or not reverts content that isn't a self revert or isn't OBVIOUS vandalism be blocked. The blocks will increase in duration after each violation of the rule. I think that this will prevent edit warring but will also allow the page to improve and will force users to discuss changes prior to implementing them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no real objections to the above. However, it would not necessarily address the possibility of a group of individuals who already have a pronounced, common POV from reverting content anyway. What might wind up happening is that we have a gang on one side who revert regularly going against a gang on the other side who restore regularly, and no real progress made. Certainly, there seem to be the numbers for this to be a real possibility in this case. John Carter 14:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If that happens then we just notify them here and they are blocked for disruptive editing. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That would probably require a body of proof such that it would be convincing to any outside admin. It would probably take at least a few weeks for that body of evidence to accumulate, and also, potentially, give anyone involved the chance to create multiple alternate IDs in advance to use until they all get blocked. Somehow, I think a few parties involved might already have created alternate IDs for these purposes. I wish this proposal would work, but I don't see that it's any more likely to. John Carter 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Then how about this: We disallow ANY editor from re-adding content that was previously reverted by another editor. For instance if you add content and I revert it, then no other editor is allowed to re-add the same content again for a week. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So, what would happen if I changed the phrasing of what was previously reverted, but added what was substantially the same content, although possibly in a different section or with altered language? Such alterations could even be legitimate and indicated by actual bad phrasing or structuring or whatever. Or finding what is apparently a reliable source for information that was previously removed for lack of sourcing? Of course, we might find out later that the new source isn't any more reliable, or might not even say what it is alleged to say. I regret to say that I think there might be at least one editor involved who is convinced of his/her position, and damn the facts that disagree. Dealing with such people, who are convinced of "the truth" of their position, is always difficult, because they think anything they do to ensure their opinion is reflected is justified. I've already been involved in one situation like that, so I can think that it might happen elsewhere as well. John Carter 14:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's better than being able to make no edits at all. As limiting as it may seem, It's still better than not being able to edit the article at all. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

True. But requests to add or change content to the article can be made even when the page is protected. I've done it myself. All that has to be done is to post such a request on the talk page. If there were others who would oppose such changes, they would probably indicate as much and I think admins looking the situation over would say that there was no reason to make such requested changes at that time. In effect, over time, only edits which are agreed to by most involved would be made. Over time, the really problematic editors would, hopefully, disappear, given their inability to make any changes, and leave only those who like you, and maybe me, are really interested in working on the article in an NPOV matter. Such semi-permanent protection is also not really something to be sought, but if it were to last long enough I think the troublemaker accounts would, eventually, disappear in time. John Carter 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for changes during full protection take far too long and are far too difficult. The problem users also won't just "disappear" as they have been there for months and sometimes years. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You say making changes under such circumstances are "far too hard", basically. Would you prefer the hardship of having to revert vandalism of the page on a regular basis? John Carter 19:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a problem with a 1 revert rule for the entire article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Shriniwaskashalikar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) emailed me after I placed an indefinite block. I have reviewed the situation and feel that due to the extensive number of warnings which failed to alter the user's pattern of self-promotion and link spamming, that a block is necessary as prevention. The user does not seem to have made any appropriate contributions. If the user wishes to resume editing, I suggest mentorship. Is there any administrator who is willing to discuss unblocking this user? Please discuss before acting. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that the primary (and sole) motivation for this editor's involvement here is to add promotional material; without any evidence of a desire to actually improve the encyclopedia, despite ample time and warnings, I don't see a reason to unblock. Mentorship is a scarce and largely unrenewable resource, and there are plenty of problem users with more potential than this one who ought to take priority. It looks like a good block, and I don't see a reason to consider unblocking. MastCell ^Talk 15:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that the user seems solely interested in promoting himself and his own theories, but isn't an indef. block a bit harsh? I'd think maybe a week block or something (just to put a shot across his bow and really get his attention), and if he continues with his behavior, then an indef. block. But, I'm not an admin, so take it for what it's worth.  :)  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If the user promises to stop spamming, I would agree to unblock. Why unblock them before they apologize? If somebody comes in my house and purposefully starts smashing my property, I will eject them. When they return a week later, I certainly won't give them a second chance. I've already sent the user an email explaining how to get unblocked. - Jehochman ^Boo! 19:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I say give them a 2nd chance (look at the template for more details) Opinions? Davnel03 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The user has replied to my email. If he minimally understands not to write about himself and not link to his own website, I will be happy to unblock him. This is quite simple. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. Hopefully he won't spam any more. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have problem with this user who disputes sources even after I have attempted to provide evidence of notability. I am trying to avoid getting into an edit war with the editor on the article

. I want to include a quote from this source, which I believe is a reliable source:

• ISBN 1594200793

Wade is a science journalist for the

. The user is keeps deleting this relevant information[62] Muntuwandi 04:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute involving interpretations of information in a published source. I might suggest posting a neutral (i.e., not "I'm right and someone's reverting me") call for additional editors to the noticeboard of a WikiProject like

WP:WPEB. Some fresh eyes and new voices might help both of you reach a consensus. In the meantime, you're both sliding towards 3RR territory, so consider backing off for a while. The article isn't going anywhere. Dppowell

04:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is why I am requesting for external help, much as I would like to be modest, i also have to be honest about my opinion. I may try the

WP:WPEB, however project boards have slow responses. Muntuwandi

04:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.x2)I would suggest soliciting a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology and calling an immediate ceasefire in the edit war, even if the article is on the wrong version. --Dynaflow babble 04:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi is purposefully misusing sources that suggest the possibility of "some"

cultural universals originating from a common human ancestry in order to claim emphatically that all cultural universals were fully developed in Africa prior to the geographic dispersal of homo sapiens. I welcome other opinions on this matter, but if history has anything to tell us when others also rebuke this editor he will simply ignore them as well in oder to present his twisted version of the facts.PelleSmith

11:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to request self-block

• User talk:Srtab1 says: "{{db-userreq|rationale=I wish to quit using this account. Please block me indefinitely.}}." Anthony Appleyard 10:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The page has been speedied by User:Penwhale, but the user has not been and will not be blocked as it would serve no useful purpose if the user doesn't want to edit any more, and could catch people in autoblocks otherwise. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well the obvious solution to that one would be to not set theautoblock... Viridae^Talk 12:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled across this user and from what I can tell he's uploaded a fair few copyright violations under GFDL-self licenses. Some examples are Image:Monokini Models.jpg, Image:Magnet Man in Barbados.JPG and in my opinion, probably violations are Image:Purple Tankini.jpg, Image:Crop Top1.jpg and Image:Microskirt.jpg. Can another set of eyes look over his uploads? –– Lid^(Talk) 12:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD them all. As far as I can tell, none are free. See here for an example. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The user B-ham (talk · contribs) keeps adding the name Scott Sonnon to List of Mensans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but the cited reference they add makes no mention of Mensa membership ... in the Edit Summary they provide the URL of a blog entry that claims he's a member, but that's not the URL they keep putting in the article ... they have been warned about unsourced additions, but are ignoring the official policies. —72.75.79.128 (talk · contribs) 15:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• B-ham looks like a single-purpose account, and the article was hopelessly POV. I have stubbed it and requested that he restrict himself to suggesting content supported by reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked this account as a vandalism only account. The username is clearly random gibberish as is most of the 8 vandalism edits made in a 4-minute timespan. There were four warnings all of which came after the vandalism spree had ended.

I am a relatively new admin and I rarely block users. I'm curious how other admins would view this situation. On the one side, the vandalism has ended. On the other side, this is clearly a vandalism-only account.

What are your thoughts?

--Richard 16:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If it only did vandalism then it can be blocked at your discretion.

1 != 2

16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The name is gibberish and the edits are vandalism. An indefinite block is totally appropriate. --Haemo 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good block. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested for the sake of brevity. east.718 at 18:56, 10/27/2007

• edit to make the archivebot work
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks - reviewed

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed to reduce size of page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®}

• edit for the archivebot
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  21:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User attacks informal mediator volunteer

Mattisse insulted an informal mediator, Blueboar, by insinuating that Blueboar purposely sided with another user in a dispute for ulterior reasons and willingly neglected to warn another user for supposed personal attacks, and called Blueboar a hypocrite, incompetent, and "not very nice." The insults mentioned previously can be seen here: [63]. More information can be found on the rest of the article's talk page, Mattisse's talk page [64], and Blueboar's talk page [65]. - Cyborg Ninja 09:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I had a look. There really is nothing to see here.Mattisse is complaining to Blueboar that he feels he has been treated unfairly. He stroppy, and rude, but i don't think any admin action is needed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd just add that it would be great if Mattisse assumes good faith w/ Blueboar. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should remind Mattisse to

WP:AGF then, and notify him that he is violating that policy. Other users have had administrative action taken against them for such conduct, and I am merely following precedents set by your peers. - Cyborg Ninja

10:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought you've informed Mattisse of this incident (as a matter of courtesy) so he can follow up what admins think about his behavior. Anyway, i've just lef him a note. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen Mattisse do such himself. Also, Mattisse previously told me not to post on his talk page. I myself am a highly courteous individual. - Cyborg Ninja 11:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Understood. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this folks... I agree that this isn't really a situation that calls for Admin intervention.... at least not yet (I am a bit concerned about how fast the accusations are escallating - now to the point of accusing me of sock puppetry). Cyborg Ninja has put the article in question up for formal mediation, and I am more than willing to step out of the picture and let the mediation committee try to resolve things (especially since Mattisse thinks I am such a poor mediator). If things escallate further I'll let you know. Blueboar 17:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked both User:Cyborg Ninja and User:Mattisse for 24 hours. I have sanctioned Cyborg Ninja for continued harassment of Mattisse (per this), despite my previously issuing a warning, and Mattisse for the catalogue of disputes with other contributors and lack of AGF when offered assistance. I have also previously attempted to resolve both Ninja Cyborgs campaign of alerting others to Mattisse's "misdemeanours" (my quotes) and Mattisse's problems with interacting with contributors whose views differ. I am getting sick of seeing both names popping up on AN and ANI. I hope the blocks will allow both to review their recent histories, learn, and move on. Any admin is free to review my actions, and amend/cancel the sanctions as deemed appropriate. LessHeard vanU 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A note re: the diff in the last post: Mattisse has claimed in the past he (or she) is/was a grandmother. He/she is also now saying that he/she works on a oil rig. While Cyborg Ninja obviously was being ambiguous and sarcastic, it is, I think, a reasonably suspicious coincidence of claims from Mattisse.

I won't say much more, as I am currently involved in a mediation with Mattisse and so will not appear to be the most neutral of sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I keep wanting to walk away from this train wreck, only to find another reason to stay involved... He has just threatened some sort of retaliation against me for "getting him blocked" (see Mattisse's talk page). Blueboar 02:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

On a tangential matter: Mattisse seems to have created "backup" duplicate articles to preserve his POV... see:

Zaojing article... which was redirected) I am not sure if any of them should stay. Advice please, if not intervention. Blueboar

01:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse probably shouldn't be unblocked per the litany of abuses he promises if unblocked on his user talk page. 67.173.131.28 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:70.116.31.203 is on a tear through various webcomics entries attempting to speedily delete them, without rhyme or reason. It seems to me this is somebody on a vendetta against webcomics, as no attempt is made to work through proper channels. Could an administrator take a look at this and if they agree it's vandalism, block or warn them? --Martin Wisse 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

They are clearly making a

WP:POINT and if so it is vandalism. Telling you to "fudge off" when you raised the issue with them is clearly a bad sign. (Emperor

13:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

The edits are clearly being done in a

WP:POINTy way, (and are still happening), but having said that, it looks like a number of these articles do met the given criteria for speedying, take Angels 2200 for example, pure cruft, with no sources.--Jac16888

13:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

True, this use may have a point on some, but there are better ways to address these issues. --Martin Wisse 13:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, what they're doing is totally the wrong way of going about it, and because of the continued reverts, the user seems to need blocking, i just meant that as articles go, few of these actually seem worth all this hassle--Jac16888 14:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely looks like a single-issue account, trying to make a

point. I'd suggest a block.  _{Folic_Acid | talk} 

13:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Could some kind administrator block them please? They're now re-adding the speedy delete notices I've just removed and I don't want to get into a revert war. --Martin Wisse 14:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also note that an article at

slashdot.org this morning raised the issue of deleting webcomics on wikipedia. That article may have given this anon the idea. See also here. I'd agree with a block, though I'm not an admin. Just wanted to bring this information forward, particularly if this account is not the only one who gets the notion to try something like this. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow - I think you're exactly right, I'd be willing to wager that this is just a continuation of that disucssion. I'd reiterate my recommendation for a block, and that we keep an eye on these articles.  Folic_Acid | talk  14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In particular this post about a possible Delete Storm here to force a change in policy. (Emperor 14:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Agreed. I have started the rollback but he is rolling back as well. We can discuss but damnit points should be made on the talk page, not the frickin mainspace.

Spryde

14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And he just removed my AIV report.

14:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't he been blocked yet? Removing his own AIV report should definitely have been the final straw. JuJube 14:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed it twice now.

Spryde

14:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Because he isn't vandalising, that's why. Actually what exactly is he doing wrong? If they don't assert notability why don't we speedy them? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What's he doing wrong? They're trying to game the speedy delete process to get rid of a whole series of articles, either because they dislike webcomics or to prove a point about the deletion process itself. They've shown no concern about being warned, no concern about getting in a revert war, are surprisingly knowledgable about wikipedia policies for a new user and have treated to use proxies (see talk page). I'd say this is a troll and I say block them. Because the last thing we want is for somebody innocently looking through the speedy delete list to actually start deleting articles based on this person's tagging, pissing off other editors in the process. It's only pure luck one of the first articles they tried to speedily delete was on my watchlist as it is. --Martin Wisse 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he is now in 5RR on a few of them. At the very least it is disruptive editing.

Spryde

14:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting him is disruptive too though. I've invited him here to argue his case. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that this is related to the above linked slashdot item. I've removed the CSD tag from

WP:POINT issue that won't go away without a time out. Ariel♥Gold

14:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reported the user for 3RR on

the report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultraexactzz (talk • contribs

) 14:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. The individual has now gone over

WP:3RR revert warring over tags on a couple articles. I've no opinion about the merits of the speedy deletion requests, but a time out was about due here.--Isotope23 ^talk

14:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I will also say that

WP:3RR by working in tandem, but going around and removing CSD tags just because you don't agree with them on the grounds of "vandalism" is disruptive as well.--Isotope23 ^talk

14:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel a block is necessary, go ahead. Per CSD, anyone can remove the CSD tag except the creator of the article. If it is removed, it should not be added back and should be prod'ed or AFD'ed. I am ususally not one for Wikilawyering but lately it seems I have had to because lots of things are no longer making sense. I try to abide by the spirit and letter of the policies to make this a better place. A person on a tagging spree flooding CSD with many spurious notifications to make a point because of a slashdot article is one of my definitions of a vandal. There have been little to no other edits on that account. There have been accounts blocked indefinitely for less. I know what vandalism is and what vandalism is not and this by many accounts as seen by this discussion is vandalism.

Spryde

17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23, please don't be silly. Spryde and I did not "work in tandem", we both saw a vandal at work and attempted to contain their damage. Much of which would not have been done btw if this vandal had been blocked earlier. --Martin Wisse 11:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Spryde and Wisse on this. The anon was (is) malicious. A procedural 3RR block would be appropriate if 3RR was broken, as those are supposed to happen completely regardless of which side was right, but other than that, good for them. --Kizor 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I went through the IP's last 50 contributions. There were about 40 webcomics there (some repeats, some other pages) - in 3 of the 40 cases I could in good faith say "decline speedy, this has an assertion of notability". The other 90% of the time, I couldn't see the assertion of notability. The one article other than a webcomic he'd tagged (for G1) I deleted under G10. I sense someone who violated

15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked them all yet, but at first glance it does look like we'll need another delete round for the web comics. There are many notable webcomics, but there are a lot more of them that aren't notable at all, and these should go, no matter if they were

Fram

15:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've removed all the speedy delete templates, because why reward vandals? Also because I disagree about the notability of webcomics, but that's a secondary reason. If we reward trolling, trolling will increase. --Martin Wisse 16:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think one could put forth a rather compelling argument that removing those templates was rather disruptive on your part Martin. Despite your characterization of the templating as "vandalism", most appeared to be on articles that meet the criteria.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bull. It's about the process, not the content. This vandal was abusing the speedy delete procedure to hammer home a point, without regard to the quality of the articles. I've no desire to reward their behaviour by letting their work stand, even if in some cases they may have had a point. If an article needs to be removed, than the normal Wikipedia channels will suffice. --Martin Wisse 11:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is disrupting wikipedia to make a good point acceptable? If so,

WP:POINT needs updating. If not, the disruption needs to stop. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk

17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the articles for lacking any evidence of notability (and some where already tagged when I got there). Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the tagging, most were speedy candidate per CSD:A7 as making no claim of notability; and all but a couple would appear to be non-notable per

WP:WEB. I'll revisit in a week or so and anything that doesn't establish notability I will PROD or AFD; even though many are probably eligible for a speedy deletion at this point I think retagging them would be counterproductive.--Isotope23 ^talk

17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're doing something useful rather than something disruptive, you're not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If Hitler himself tags an article for speedy deletion, and it's a speediable article, we should delete it rather than remove the template just because he's Hitler. Friday (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DICK. I have no idea if this user qualifies as such, I am only noting that there are two issues here, and it is important to keep them separate. --Jayron32|talk|contribs

17:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

as some or many of them seem to be disputed here by people in good standing, then it would seem like AfD is the necessary step. The key word is indiscriminate: tagging all the articles on a given subject where some are clearly notable is not in good faith, any more than would b making articles on every conceivable one of a class of subjects where some are clearly not notable. (I have no opinion one way or another on articles on this particular subject).DGG (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD, a few at a time, is an appropriate choice for a next step (other choices exist, like PROD or a discussion at a relevant WikiProject). Not all at once - AFD nominating too many articles in a given topic area at the same time is also disruptive. "Too many" is an undefined grey area - if a group nomination works due to commonality of issue ("Band X and all albums/songs") that would be 1 AFD no matter how many articles are covered. If each needs to be considered separately, then more than five a day is in my opinion too many - for any topic area X.

GRBerry

20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as an FYI but the Webcomics Project had gone idle and the Comics Project has taken it under their wing to for the

Webcomics work group, which would be the best venue for a broader discussion and I've dropped in notes over there on the issues here. Hopefully we can get the balance right on what to include and what needs to go - although we are never going to make everyone happy. (Emperor

02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Don't forget the Wikinews article n:Wikimedia fundraiser highlights webcomic community's frustration with Wikipedia guidelines (and incidentally, if you check out the Comments on the article, the same IP made a wonderfully helpful comment in the section "I'm not donating this year"). Confusing Manifestation 01:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is subject to frequent edit warring and it has been protected dozens of times in the past under various names. Protecting the page seems to have absolutely no affect on the edit warring as it always continues immediately after it's unprotected and protecting it halts all progress made by non-edit warring parties attempting to improve it. I propose that if the edit warring continues then the page be subject to a 1 revert per week rule, where if ANY editor administrator or not reverts content that isn't a self revert or isn't OBVIOUS vandalism be blocked. The blocks will increase in duration after each violation of the rule. I think that this will prevent edit warring but will also allow the page to improve and will force users to discuss changes prior to implementing them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no real objections to the above. However, it would not necessarily address the possibility of a group of individuals who already have a pronounced, common POV from reverting content anyway. What might wind up happening is that we have a gang on one side who revert regularly going against a gang on the other side who restore regularly, and no real progress made. Certainly, there seem to be the numbers for this to be a real possibility in this case. John Carter 14:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If that happens then we just notify them here and they are blocked for disruptive editing. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That would probably require a body of proof such that it would be convincing to any outside admin. It would probably take at least a few weeks for that body of evidence to accumulate, and also, potentially, give anyone involved the chance to create multiple alternate IDs in advance to use until they all get blocked. Somehow, I think a few parties involved might already have created alternate IDs for these purposes. I wish this proposal would work, but I don't see that it's any more likely to. John Carter 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Then how about this: We disallow ANY editor from re-adding content that was previously reverted by another editor. For instance if you add content and I revert it, then no other editor is allowed to re-add the same content again for a week. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So, what would happen if I changed the phrasing of what was previously reverted, but added what was substantially the same content, although possibly in a different section or with altered language? Such alterations could even be legitimate and indicated by actual bad phrasing or structuring or whatever. Or finding what is apparently a reliable source for information that was previously removed for lack of sourcing? Of course, we might find out later that the new source isn't any more reliable, or might not even say what it is alleged to say. I regret to say that I think there might be at least one editor involved who is convinced of his/her position, and damn the facts that disagree. Dealing with such people, who are convinced of "the truth" of their position, is always difficult, because they think anything they do to ensure their opinion is reflected is justified. I've already been involved in one situation like that, so I can think that it might happen elsewhere as well. John Carter 14:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's better than being able to make no edits at all. As limiting as it may seem, It's still better than not being able to edit the article at all. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

True. But requests to add or change content to the article can be made even when the page is protected. I've done it myself. All that has to be done is to post such a request on the talk page. If there were others who would oppose such changes, they would probably indicate as much and I think admins looking the situation over would say that there was no reason to make such requested changes at that time. In effect, over time, only edits which are agreed to by most involved would be made. Over time, the really problematic editors would, hopefully, disappear, given their inability to make any changes, and leave only those who like you, and maybe me, are really interested in working on the article in an NPOV matter. Such semi-permanent protection is also not really something to be sought, but if it were to last long enough I think the troublemaker accounts would, eventually, disappear in time. John Carter 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for changes during full protection take far too long and are far too difficult. The problem users also won't just "disappear" as they have been there for months and sometimes years. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You say making changes under such circumstances are "far too hard", basically. Would you prefer the hardship of having to revert vandalism of the page on a regular basis? John Carter 19:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a problem with a 1 revert rule for the entire article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Shriniwaskashalikar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) emailed me after I placed an indefinite block. I have reviewed the situation and feel that due to the extensive number of warnings which failed to alter the user's pattern of self-promotion and link spamming, that a block is necessary as prevention. The user does not seem to have made any appropriate contributions. If the user wishes to resume editing, I suggest mentorship. Is there any administrator who is willing to discuss unblocking this user? Please discuss before acting. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that the primary (and sole) motivation for this editor's involvement here is to add promotional material; without any evidence of a desire to actually improve the encyclopedia, despite ample time and warnings, I don't see a reason to unblock. Mentorship is a scarce and largely unrenewable resource, and there are plenty of problem users with more potential than this one who ought to take priority. It looks like a good block, and I don't see a reason to consider unblocking. MastCell ^Talk 15:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that the user seems solely interested in promoting himself and his own theories, but isn't an indef. block a bit harsh? I'd think maybe a week block or something (just to put a shot across his bow and really get his attention), and if he continues with his behavior, then an indef. block. But, I'm not an admin, so take it for what it's worth.  :)  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If the user promises to stop spamming, I would agree to unblock. Why unblock them before they apologize? If somebody comes in my house and purposefully starts smashing my property, I will eject them. When they return a week later, I certainly won't give them a second chance. I've already sent the user an email explaining how to get unblocked. - Jehochman ^Boo! 19:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I say give them a 2nd chance (look at the template for more details) Opinions? Davnel03 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The user has replied to my email. If he minimally understands not to write about himself and not link to his own website, I will be happy to unblock him. This is quite simple. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. Hopefully he won't spam any more. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I don't know how to lift what looks like an autoblock which I apparently imposed, but can't trace.

The editor concerned is

).

I can find no evidence of a block by me or anyone against against that IP, but I presume that it is an autoblock imposed through one of the blocks I imposed on Pastorwayne's numerous suspected sockpuppets. Can anyone help me to find out how to ensure that the autoblock is lifted so that ratkins06 can resume editing?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This guy has made 1 edit, back in July. Now his account is auto-blocked and all of the sudden he mails you he can't edit anymore. Doesn't that strike you as a bit suspicious?--Atlan (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't just one email. It took three emails from him for me to track what was happening: one in reply to me asking his username, and one including a screenshot once I replied that his username showed no sign of being blocked. And the edit he says he wants to do is to the same page he edited before.

It could indeed be that he is a determined vandal eager to gain access to wreak havoc, but I have no reason not to

assume good faith

. I can see no grounds for this editor being blocked, other than the misfortune of having an IP previously used by a suspected sockuppet.

So can someone please tell me how I can go about lifting the autoblock? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

See instructions for the user to follow at {{

GRBerry

20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Have done that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)