Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive479

I just nuked

) 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, the article has been around since 2005, and a 30 second search reveals more than enough sources that would warrant an article under that specific term. I think the article should be undeleted or started anew from scratch. --Conti|✉ 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how "No one bothered to nuke it before now" somehow makes a subject encyclopedic. Age does not always denote worth - check out any dirty old man or meddlesome old lady for proof of that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought that linking to dozens of reliable sources using that term was the better part of my argument, too. :) --Conti|✉ 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If it should be anything (doubtful), it should be a redirect to Chris Bangle with some sourced information (if that's possible) at that article. Black Kite 17:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea; I've redirected, although I have not added any content to the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the article numerous times in popular car magazines 100+ instances,3 instances,164 instances (mainly forums, some reviews. Here's a quote from a Motor Trend Interview with Bangle: Love or loathe his work, Bangle's impact on auto design has been profound. No other designer, not even legendary GM design chief Harley Earl, has so rapidly become a part of the industry lexicon. To "bangle" a design is now an auto-industry verb for ruining it. Auto writers use "Bangle butt" to describe a tail with an extra layer of metal on the trunk (think new Mercedes S-Class). Bangle, some rivals will remind you, is only one letter away from "bungle." Whether or not the term deserves it's own article is debatable, but at the very least should be addressed in Bangle's bio. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on what else to do with it, but redirecting it to the BLP is NOT a good way to leave it. Someone googling that term would think that the term is referring to him and not realize that it is referring to the car. It should either redirect to an article subsection, be an actual article, or redirect to an article on automotive slang (if there is such a thing). But leaving it as a redirect to the BLP really isn't acceptable IMO. --B (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree it should not redirect to Bangle's bio. It's a bio about his whole person, not just his butt. The term Bangle-butt should stay redlinked, per

WP:CSD#R3 (Implausible). I've heard the editorial comment "that car has been bangled" (verb) as well, doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Keeper ǀ 76

16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the term isn't notable by itself. If I read this right, this is all automotive related, right? Don't we have a list of automotive industry related slang or some other similar minutiae?--Tznkai (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it quite fits as part of List of automotive superlatives. Maybe the BMW is the "first car to be criticized as ugly enough to disparage it's designer?", although I can't hardly imagine this is the first designer to be criticized in car mags. Someone stunk up the world with the Ford Pinto and the AMC Gremlin after all....18:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised the article is deleted. The subject is well known among car enthusiasts. And imho notable. [1] --Boivie (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mtngoat63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), fresh off a block for 3RR (actually 6RR - see discussion above), returns to the article to begin revert warring[2][3] and uncivil rants.[4] Has been warned plenty of times, and calmly offered advice on learning Wikipedia's content and behavior policies (see his talk page, for instance). Thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The incivility of this editor got under my skin enough that, for the very first time, I committed a 3RR violation myself and was briefly blocked for it. Mtngoat63 has not, as of yet, engaged in a single discussion over the contentious material s/he has been edit-warring over, despite repeated -- nay, continuous -- efforts to engage with the editor. I am beginning to wonder whether Wikipedia has been subjected to one of the long-term abusers, such as

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown. --GoodDamon

22:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor has reverted a third time.[5] GoodDamon reports that the citation links are copyvios. I'm proposing to restore stable neutral article content (this would be my 2RR today). Anyone, please feel free to tell me no or jump in. All attempts to communicate or reach consensus failed at this point. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I didn't catch them earlier. One of them is a pure C&P of text written by Barack Obama, stored on someone's non-reliable (and presumably non-permitted) website. The others I removed are literally scanned pages of books, stored at a free image hosting website. I cannot comprehend what would lead someone to believe those would be suitable and permissible uses of copyrighted works. --GoodDamon 23:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the short Obama paragraph being taken out when the Hillary Clinton paragraph just above it is left in? Saul Alinsky influenced Barack Obama, didn't he? That's what all the sources that mention both of them indicate. Seems like important information for the Alinsky article and, in fact, it's the kind of information on influences that would typically be in a Wikipedia article. How is your edit warring on this any different from POV pushing? I've read the discussion at

talk

) 00:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please strike the above comment? It's really unwarranted - Wikidemon (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong about linking to a copyvio web page, as GoodDamon pointed out to me at Talk:Saul Alinsky, so I've crossed out that part. See how it's done, guys? You actually pay attention to the facts and when you're wrong, you admit it. Because the facts are more important than your personal preferences. Too bad you didn't follow that practice at

talk

) 06:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Good job on recognizing clear violations of policy, but... what? Looking back on those earlier edits, Mtngoat63 was first trying to get the paragraph in with laughably awful sources including copyright violations and a creationist blog (the "dancingfromgenesis" one), and refused to even acknowledge that other editors might have a problem with that. I literally "begged" the editor to take the content dispute to the talk page, and simply got insults for it. Let me be blunt: Ignorance of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is mever a valid excuse for personal attacks, especially on editors who are trying to help. --GoodDamon 06:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The article in question... oh, wait, you're bringing up Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn here? Why? Well, anyway, as near as I can tell, Barack Obama never met Alinsky, so any information about the influence of Alinsky's writings on Obama actually belongs somewhere in the Obama family of articles, not in Alinsky's biography. But as Alinsky and Hillary Clinton did meet, that may merit a mention. So, as for the rest of what you wrote... Can you remind me what it has to do with this incident? --GoodDamon 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment - Mtngoat63 has continued to edit the article

01:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Will an administrator please take some notice of this? There is now an anonymous editor defending the continued coatrack editing of Mtngoat63, and I strongly suspect the anonymous editor is a sock of another editor based on edit summaries. --GoodDamon 04:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks like an issue for

talk

) 11:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The editor in question has been abusive and antagonistic to the point where I don't think this can accurately be described as a content dispute. Nevertheless, if that is your determination, I'll open a new report there. --GoodDamon 14:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please have some assistance with this editor? Continuing to revert war over poor content.[6] That's the 9th revert of this material in 3 days by the same editor, [[7]][[8]][[9]][[10]][[ [[11]][[12]][[13]][[14]][[15]] and about 13 in a week, fresh out of a block for 6RR on the same content in another article, accompanied by ongoing vituperation and suspected IP sock behavior ([[16]]). There is utterly no sign of acknowledging policy, working with other editors, etc.[17][18] I would rate the chance of this working out without administrative intervention at about zero. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

...okay, the editor just violated 3RR again so I filed another report there. Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• As an alternative to kicking a new editor in the teeth, repeatedly, as a way of welcoming that editor to Wikipedia, and filing complaints at 3RR/N, the Sockpuppet noticeboard and here, I've left a friendly, courteous note on the editors page, at
  talk
  ) 01:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If it works I'm all for it! This report is stale now anyway. Don't forget to be nice to established editors, too :) Wikidemon (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am more than a little concerned by Deviljin60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who recently described themselves as 'a pakistani militant' in an edit summary [20] and then deleted a talk page request to explain or clarify [21] .

He's been editing in a somewhat but not seriously disruptive manner, however the "I'm a militant" claim raises a whole bunch of other potential problems. It's generally rude to put a deleted question or comment back on someone's talk page. However, if this is a (violent terrorist type) militant, then I think that we probably would want to politely show him the door.

SO...

1. Ask again, and if he deletes again or fails to clarify block?
2. Ask again, but don't block even if he turns out to be a (violent terrorist type) militant?
3. Ask again, but don't block even if he just deletes the question again?
4. Someone else do the asking?
5. Don't worry about it?

Other options and input welcome as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

1. 1. ThuranX (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

1, but only to coerce him into answering the question. --erachima talk 00:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

5, I find the claim to be highly dubious. Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

00:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Certainly not 1, as users are usually
  allowed to remove comments from their own talk pages, and simply not answering a question is not grounds for blocking (how would it be preventative?). Even if this user comes out and says s/he's a terrorist, I'm not sure how justified a block would be unless their edits are disruptive. I would say 3, 4, or 5. -kotra (talk
  ) 00:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say do nothing about the "militant" statement. I could say I'm Osama Bin Laden, but if I don't provide third party verifiable sources for any information I include in an article, I should be reverted. And if I continue to ignore any warning to provide such WP:V, then block away. Militants may have something to add just like anyone else, as long as they are not disruptive and don't ignore WP policies and guidelines.--«JavierMC»|Talk 00:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that if you say you're Osama Bin Laden, someone would at least run a checkuser. :-) Hesperian 02:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That $20 million reward is tempting huh? :)~ --«JavierMC»|Talk 02:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, JavierMC's course of action would be the sensible one. Alternatively, we could block him along with other militants on the project, such as anybody with this on their userpage. I thought we (used to?) at least pretend around here that U.S. foreign policy doesn't determine Wikipedia policy. <eleland/talkedits> 01:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, "militant" ≠ "terrorist", folks. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the crux of the matter is whether he is a constructive editor or not. What difference his "militancy" if he does not carry on here with it, in either his editing or in using Wikipedia to promote an off-Wiki agenda. Dlohcierekim 01:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

3, 4, or 5. If its not showing in his editing, no big deal.

) 03:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please. If you take a look at the history of his user page, you'll see that his command of English isn't very good. He's probably in the Pakistani Army. I once had a conversation with a fellow from Spain who repeatedly told me that he used to be a "militar", while he did a little pantomime of marching. It didn't take me long to figure out that what he had been was a soldier. The answer is obviously 5--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's still a polemic in violation of

05:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're in violation of
  WP:AGF. Bear in mind firstly, militant does not mean terrorist. Secondly, remember he's editing in good faith, and not causing any trouble. Thirdly, be aware he isn't a native English speaker, and "militant" to him may mean "soldier", "military man", or even "military fan". fish&karate
  14:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the user's edits. He's been updating articles with technical details of Pakistani military equipment. He's added things like Its armor can withstand more than 10 RPG's(Rocket propelled grenades). to

Al Khalid II Main Battle Tank[22]. This editor is either a soldier or a military buff. Quit worrying. --John Nagle (talk

) 05:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF

would suggest that one give the user the benefit of the doubt on that question, but that doesn't mean we have to wilfully ignore what they wrote in particular. Which is why I first asked on his talk page, and then when that was deleted by him without answering I came here. What I asked them included that exact question - whether they were what is known in US english as a military buff, explaining how "militant" is used in normal english. Rather than actually answering the question, they just deleted it.

I can continue to AGF, but it's a worrysome enough possibility that I think it's worth following up, hence the post here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Please, please, do not take any action that would make the
  city of Boston look sage and cautious by comparison. Protonk (talk
  ) 05:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the bright side: Every minute he's on wikipedia is a minute he's not out trying to kill somebody. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So we want to block a constructive editor because . . . ?[ If he were a terrorist, he'd hardly announce here, would he? This is a bit preposterous. And certainly, if anyone linked to terrorism were editing here, wouldn't the CIA be unto them? This is one of the busiest websites on the Internet. Anyone who doesn't think CIA monitors activity here is probably pretty naive. And I'm sure they would figure out who and where someone was faster than you could say "WhoIs"? Dlohcierekim 19:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, Dlohcierekim, the US government has a few question to ask you... We are taking this way to seriously. Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

21:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

See intro - user is somewhat disruptive, but AGF'ing indicates it's just new user unfamiliar with Wikipedia ways. They have been resistant to repeated polite requests to change, so far. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This user (who has rollback and untill recently ACC, it was just revoked) has been caught red handed by CU, logging out and vandalising,logging back in an using rollback to revert it then proceding to brag about reverting vandalism on IRC. He has also run a bot on his account (and may still be running)

All this was discovered when we did some looking up on the IP's he was using to connect to IRC, some interesting contributions to say the least, then finding out he was also reverting them.

For these reasons Im proposing removal of rollback due to the vandalism and a block untill he declares that the bot is currently not running, nor will run untill its approved.

For evidence see

08:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems like Alison has got it under control, she's given him a final warning. His rollback might be an issue though, I'd support its removal. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to remove it, it just feels to punitive. After all, he's unlikely to fuck around now and would likely just get it back soon enough when he decides to "reform". John Reaves 09:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on the bot, he's running a copy of Addbot which can be seen by comparing the source pages --Chris 09:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I revoked the account creator right however. John Reaves 09:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My goal here is to have him stop the vandalism; that's my primary concern. He's had his warning, so that's the end of that game. I don't see too much of a need to punish the guy, to be honest - Alison ^❤ 09:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

When do we remove rollback it not in this situation?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

When people edit war with the tool or, say, start reverting non-vandalistic edits. John Reaves 09:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So disrupting the project, leeching others time by reverting his own vandalism and then reporting to AIV, then logging back in to effectivly evade his own ip block doesnt count? Rollback is a privledge, this user has made it quite clear that he needs a break from it.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

and lets not even mention the un-approved bot.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. Rollback is a meaning less tool we give to revert vandalism, not some sort of reward for good behavior. He hasn't abused rollback, therefore he still has it. John Reaves 09:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

By

policy he may not have abused it, but by principal he has. Making vandalism just to revert so he can make drama and bragging rights is abuse and is counter productive to the project. But since some people are more concerned about what the rules say in black and white rather than using initative, i'll let this slide.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

09:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Let it slide"? It's not like any one is answering to you. John Reaves 09:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No one in thier right mind answers to another wikipedian. In other words im withdrawing despite what i think.  «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Fully agree with Promethean that this constitutes an appaling breach of the underlying basic principles, the spirit of our policies and I also echo his wondering why people here seem reluctant to identify TylerPuetz's actions as a reason to revoke his Rollback access. He has proven that he cannot handle it responsibly, what more is needed? Everyme 12:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (Reopened as discussion had clearly not ended). I've removed
    talk · contribs)'s rollback rights; using them to tool around by reverting your own vandalism is not for what the tool is intended. I think Alison has been admirably restrained in only giving him a final warning. fish&karate
    12:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Your actions and Promethean's point are supported by me. Good work in my book.--VS ^talk 12:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, Whilst I wanted it's removal I think that it should be made clear to TylerPuetz (who is fairly young as a contributor and person) that this is not the end of the world, we are not ganging up on him and that given good contributions / behaviour (logged in and out) for a period of time (not too long) will re-establish trust and that he can have rollback back. (if he still wants it)   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, if you ask Troy_07, he confirmed my other IP was a shared IP, and my current IP, 24.251.76.165, has few contributions. About the bot thing, I've only made one edit via that sandbot to test it out, Only 1 at all. And it was to my userpage. The old IP was shared by about 8 different people, so please keep this topic open so I can discuss it.
          talk/_contribs
          ) 14:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
          • That may be the case, IT seems there are two possibilitys, you have either edited from an IP at the same time a massive IP changing vandal has innocently, or you are that vandal. Im looking into this further.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
            • In further review im getting Alison just to confirm some things as i tiny detail has popped up which may change the way the storyline goes. This so called shared ip you used, do you know what it was for (eg school etc)?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

←For info of those who aren't aware, although he's blanked the conversations regarding them from his talkpage (which he's certainly entitled to do) this isn't TP's first issue. – 

 15:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • You were asking what school, Millennium High School, in the agua fria union high school district. --
                talk/_contribs
                ) 17:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is there a big lack of evidence for anyone to review here. There's Alison's word, which I trust, that he was logging out to vandalize, but she wasn't the one who started this section, and Promethean's comments have included things that don't appear to have been confirmed on-wiki:

"logging out and vandalising,logging back in an using rollback to revert it" - Alison confirmed he was apparently logging out and vandalizing, but has she confirmed that he was logging back in and reverting it? The former could possibly be explained by a shared IP (though without knowing the IP, its hard to tell if its shared), the latter would not be.

"For evidence see here" - Umm, more specific please? He has a lot of edits, and I don't even know what I'm supposed to be looking for there.

"He has also run a bot on his account" - Where's the evidence of this?

Does Promethean know the IPs in question? If so, why not provide them as evidence? If not, why is he acting as the "official spokesman" for this, when he's almost completely in the dark? Mr.Z-man 17:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify; yes, he's using a shared IP right now, as he states above. However, the logging out occurred on an IP address that he also uses which is a domestic one - Alison ^❤ 18:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying I was doing what I was accused of, but even if I was logging out to vandalize, and logging back in to revert, if you look at my contributions, and do extensive searching, I've only reverted probably 15 of my edits, and they were to my user page/sandbox, or undoing my own edits when I had made a mistake. --

talk/_contribs

) 18:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There was not a huge quantity of them, by any means, no. Hence my dealing with the situation; you got warned to not do that. And there it basically should end, right? Problem solved? - Alison ^❤ 19:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that main thing bothering me was the fact that I had rollback + account creator rights revoked, yet, a thoruough investigation had not taken place. I think my use of Huggle has been fair, despite the problems I had nearly 5-6 months ago. I'm confused about the status of this incident, can someone fill me in with a final descision? --

talk/_contribs

) 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Persistent page redirecting

I'm not quite sure whether or not this can be considered vandalism, or even wrong per se, however i've decided to bring this incident to AN/I because it may require admin intervention. User

and reverted my edits. The article originally contained good quality content, which acted as the the main page of that topic (Jazz Jackrabbit).

I'm unable to continue to revert his egregious edits, because I'm already in violation of 3RR [26]. However what I find more worrying, is that a similar ip address (from the same vicinity or area) belonging to blocked user Fangusu did the exact same thing 5 days earlier [27]!
I think these bad faith edits are more sinister than they appear. --Flewis^(talk) 12:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not in violation of 3RR - it doesn't apply to vandalism, and once you tried to communicate with the IP and they continued the unexplained redirecting, it became implicit vandalism. So no worries there. I've semi-protected the article in question for 5 days, so you've now got time to convince the IP to talk to you, otherwise there's now time for him/her to get bored and go away. I have no opinions on the other IP or on Fangusu because I've not looked into the matter. ➨ ❝

ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed

12:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the apparent lack of Notability of the Character/Series separately, and the fact that they probably belong in the same article anyway is a discussion for elsewhere :-)

(drive)

13:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. The content element is nothing to do with me or any other administrator (in an admin capacity) and I never even looked at it; the repeatedly redirecting an article after being asked to stop bit is 100% admin territory. The IP can easily slap an AfD template on the article in question and a rationale on the talk page and I'll list it when DumbBOT next updates. ➨ ❝

ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed

15:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly a sock of blocked user Fangusu. He has been editing from IPs in the same range for the past few weeks since his main account was blocked. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty clearly, yes. I've blocked the IP for a week. Feel free to let me know if you find more, so they can be blocked and this one can be unblocked. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this thread... I blocked the entire 59.183.0.0/18 range for 31 hours. If that doesn't cause a problem, we can start increasing the duration. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ran across this lovely thought this morning at Sanford Bishop, added by 168.10.63.72 (talk · contribs) yesterday, and I figured that if anything further needed to be done besides removal, there'd be someone here who's better equipped to deal with it than me. 71.215.236.12 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Email sent to Georgia Board of Regents (abuse contact) reporting incident. Toddst1 (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

How about contacting the FBI? I think they frown upon people threatening to kill members of Congress. KnightLago (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that resolves to a high school, actually (universities wouldn't use anything at doe.k12.ga.edu for emails), so I'll bet it's a prank. Happened around 9 AM local time, too, so during school hours. Still, no harm being cautious. The Board of Regents should be able to handle it from here, forwarding to other agencies as necessary. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 15:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You could be right, but I just got a call back from the FBI. Toddst1 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So what did they have to say? "Thanks for the tip"? "Don't call this number again"? "What's this 'wikipedia' dealie"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

With no doubt the FBI would be very interested in this. While it may be a silly prank of some high school kid they should all be looked into by the appropriate law enforcement agencies (read: no wikipedia editors) and let the threat level be determined by the experts. Bstone (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

They appreciated the info and asked for clarification on how to interpret the diff and exactly what text the IP added. For future reference, here is the URL: https://tips.fbi.gov/ to report such. Those of us who report TOV to authorities might want to keep that bookmarked. I also got a response thanking me from the Georgia Department of Education saying they had identified the school and were investigating. Toddst1 (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Kudos. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This guy is a combat veteran, says he's worked as a mercenary; now he's escalating an edit dispute to what he describes as "war"; when I posted a moderate notice on

14:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not being unreasonable. I was on my way to indef block him, but someone got there before I did. KnightLago (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked until they retract and promise to stay completely away from you in the future. --

barneca (talk

) 15:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Make that a triple Block-conflict - I was going to do the same. Good block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well shucks, the indef block might just negate my sparkling new

(drive)

17:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oooh. I'm going to remember that template. Definitely could have used that in the past. Yoink. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the operative part of that user's ID is its first syllable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

132.248.103.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a template on the talk page saying the IP address, 132.248.103.234, is registered to Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Ciudad Universitaria circuito exterior s/n, 04510 - Mexico - DF, MX. Kralizec! (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) blocked it for 31 hours last week, and Icairns (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) did the same today for one week.

Last night, unaware of the 234 IP, I blocked 132.248.103.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for the same vandalisms.

Looking through the articles that the two IPs likes to add its information to,

• 189.217.58.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log),
• 189.216.156.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log),
• 189.216.69.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log),
• 189.216.236.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and
• 132.248.103.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

have all been doing the same thing.

I was wondering if a

) 20:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That 189 range would be enormous 189.216.0.0/15 at a minimum. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mcumpston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making PAs as a result of my notification of a copyvio and the removal of some images of questionable merit; see all his edits between 23:48, 25 September 2008 and 06:29, 25 September 2008; mostly made after my advice that he read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. I suggest you try

Wikiquette Alerts first, as there is no real need for admin intervention as far as I see it. Regards SoWhy

09:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

←This is more than a mere content dispute:

• "Article ... destroyed because of whatever idiocy motivates the complainant"
• "Apparently something I added to one or another articles set this individual off"
• "I apparently blunderd into an area that offended your sensibilities"
• "I didn't realize that the person promulgating the attack on the article was also monitoring LWF's talk page. Had I realized this I would not have characterized him in such an inflamatory and comtemptious manner"
• "I believe the inclusion of a picture of a hunter with a feral hog brough me to his attention and inflamed him in some manner causing him to research my articles and begin deleting material" (he believes wrongly).

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless this should be handled as

WP:DR: The Administrators' Noticeboard is not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors.). Regards SoWhy

11:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur, this is a matter for

talk

) 11:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though he's since reverted to the Copyvio version? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• From the talk page: Let me say this about the alleged copywright violation. The apparently violated passage linked to this page is a UK based-commercial blurb of a book WHICH I WROTE AND TO WHICH I HOLD THE COPYWRIGHT. This is obviously and transparently sourced in the reference section of this article--Mcumpston (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC). So, Andy, once again you appear to be acting ni a disruptive and
  WP:POINTy way. Now would be a great time to stop. Guy (Help!
  ) 13:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • From the copyvio boilerplate: "If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Walker Colt.". Now, please stop making baseless allegations. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Andy, you are being a dick. Would you liek to explain why you didn't simply point Mcumpston to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, which would have speedily resolved the issue, as he is obviously the rights owner? Guy (Help!) 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kindly keep your penile insults to yourself. I didn't do so because, at the time I flagged the page as a copyvio, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, he hadn't made the claim to be the author (in fact the book has two listed authors; is he both?). As soon as he did make that claim, on his talk page, I did point him to the relevant part of the boilerplate, as quoted above. I note that you have now reverted to the version of the page containing the apparent copyvio. I've seen no verification of his claim to be the author; have you? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on completely missing the point of that long-standing meta essay. If this happens again, all you need to do is point the user to the Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials page. When they read it, content authors either send a release or run screaming (usually they do not release under GFDL, in my experience). The point is, the dispute is usually resolved swiftly and with minimal disruption. Simply revert-warring does not fix the problem, it prolongs and escalates it; instead, you need to engage the user and get him to realise what he must do to release the text and exactly what that would mean. And usually just reading the release page is sufficient. As to reverting, I simply reverted to the last version with content, on the grounds that the massive copyvio tag with zero actual content was not actually helping anyone. Had you left it at a version with content I'd not have rolled back. And what's happened is that we appear to have conspired, once again, to drive off a potential contributor with some subject knowledge - I was sort of hoping that might be avoidable in this case. Why the bluntness? Because we have been here before. So, if this happens again, please just link the release page, most authors will speedily withdraw rather than surrender all rights, as this one did in about 45 minutes, including the time it took him to read the page. That would be a great way to avoid drama if any similar dispute arises in future. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed: I didn't do so because, at the time I flagged the page as a copyvio, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, he hadn't made the claim to be the author (in fact the book has two listed authors; is he both?). As soon as he did make that claim, on his talk page, I did point him to the relevant part of the boilerplate, as quoted above. If you wish to revise the Copyvio procedure, which I followed, this is not the forum to do so. You owe me an apology,; though it's clear from your talk page you don't intend to make one. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's almost as if you have a reputation for disutatiousness and edit warring, isn't it? Oh, wait, you do have a reputation for just that. And trolling, quite a lot. So, sorry, it's a case of "give a dog a bad name". I posted the lnik to the page on releasing material, and Mcumpston immediately ceased the dispute - 45 minutes post to post. If I can do it, so can you. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From my lofty perch safely outside the conflict, it seems to me that you two have gotten on each others nerves, and are now sniping at each other more from annoyance than anything else. IMHO, this issue is more or less resolved, and things would work out better if you both walked away, even if not 100% satisfied with the results.

To facilitate this, I will offer my trademarked World Famous Bigger Person Award not yet designed; I'll get right to work on it though to the person that lets the other one make the final post in this thread. Guy, unfortunately Andy has a head start in this regard, since you were the last one to post, but life is unfair sometimes.

Surely no one would be able to resist such an award? --

barneca (talk

) 14:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

update: Mcumpston has now made explicitly clear that he does not wish to relinquish his copyright. Your revert to the Copyvio version now seems increasingly unwise. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The current state of the page seems to be in order.

talk

) 14:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes. The images.

talk

) 14:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would query whether the two images Mcumpston uploaded added much value, and suggest if he wishes to delete the two images he uploaded, it would be a gesture of good will to do so. fish&karate 14:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they qualify for G7 — it's fairly clear that he is attempting to withdraw the license illegitimately.

talk

) 14:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A user can change their mind on submitting their own text to Wikipedia, but not the images? This doesn't seem right. A gesture of good will would not require images to qualify for any speedy criterion. fish&karate 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, the GFDL is irrevocable. John Reaves 14:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, so? That means we can use the images, not that we should. fish&karate 10:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's more that the images are quite useful whereas the article can survive fine without the text.

talk

) 18:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As Mcumpston has - as Andy says - stated he does not wish to permit re-use under GFDL (he was intially unaware this was a requirement of donating material), use of the material is again a copyright violation, so I have reverted

Walker Colt to the last good version. This can probably be marked as resolved. fish&karate

14:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've selectively deleted all versions of the page since Mcumpston showed up.

talk

) 14:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on their edits (mostly the same gun articles), are User:Cumpston and User:Mcumpston the same person? fish&karate 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record (no impropriety suggested), note that he seems to have previously posted as Cumpston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no improprietry - just trying to track all his edits to see if he'd submitted anything else from his own books to other pages. I can't find anything. fish&karate 14:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't see your post when I made mine; I meant that I was not implying impropriety. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Also Cump (talk · contribs) (again, no evidence of improprietry, just logging it here for contribution tracking). fish&karate 10:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mcumpston is now edit-warring over rights on images. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing if I can explain it to him, hoping that I'm not completely wrong. Let's try not to edit war, though, eh? lifebaka++ 15:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So what's being said here is that images are being deleted left and right at a furious pace, all over Wikipedia, due to rampant copyright paranoia, but this guy can't delete his own damn photograph? That's cute.

What's wrong with his putting a {{db-author}} template on it, and letting it be deleted? Just because a free image exists, doesn't mean that we're required to use it.Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Based on User talk:Mcumpston, it seems that he is the copyright holder of the images. He submitted them under a PD licence, and subsequently changed his mind. This means Wikipedia retain the image. It does not mean we are obliged to, however. There are plenty of Walker Colt / Colt Walker images on Flickr, surely a couple of them must be under CC licensing. If anyone good with images could spend a few minutes finding a suitable one (Flickr images are blocked for me - I can see search results but not the images), the images Mcumpston wants deleted could safely be deleted. fish&karate 10:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This one is BY-NC-ND 2.0 licensed. I'm not entirely au fait with Wikipedia's licensing polices though, so I don't know if that's OK, but I'm just trying to help out here. Codeine (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

<reset indent>I don't see the problem with deleting the images. It seems he didn't understand the license (specifically the commercial aspect) so I don't really see how the license is valid anyway. I'm rather inclined to delete the images. Sarah 19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears there is indeed a licensing issue with these images, sadly - as they are good ones. Not everyone understands our copyright rules and I think there would be grounds to delete under invalid licence (also note NC is not compatible with Wiki) Orderinchaos 19:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the three images (one was orphaned) that he was not happy with. I don't see how it can be considered a valid license when he has made it clear that he didn't understand the terms and didn't intend to release them for commercial use. And as he has given us dozens of other images, it seems sensible and decent to show a little consideration with respect to these three pictures when he has made it clear that he didn't want to release them under a free for all license. I agree with Orderinchaos that it's rather unfortunate because they're nice pictures but, as others have said, I'm sure we'll be able to find replacements, either through flickr or something similar or via one of the gun editors. Sarah 00:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

How many times does Goingoveredge (talk · contribs) need to be blocked before finally being banned? It doesn't seem to stop him, he just waits till his block expires, then he comes back to edit war and to repeatedly attack other edits with edit summaries like this. Corvus cornix_talk 21:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of trying to encourage Goingoveredge of any form of discussion. Tried to file an RFC on him HERE and now I am even tired of keeping all his violations in this RFC list as they are very long. Please provide your feedback on the RFC: user-Goingoveredge as well. Thanks, --Roadahead (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Anybody??? Corvus cornix_talk 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I support an indef block on this one. Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

01:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on that for now, but consider a block for edit waring with dubious edit summaries. That having been said, this fight over... apparently all things India is a bit more complex than just Goingoveredge's behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

His recent destruction of content in

) 08:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Support indef block His edit summaries

• "khalistani troll" [28]
• "incitement to genocide" [29]
• "Khalistani racist" [30]
• "genocide inciter" [31]
• "khalistani hatemonger" [32]

are violation of

) 10:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Support indef block as Goingoveredge does not seem like an honest editor making honest mistakes, but somebody who is religiously adamant on fearlessly violating Wikipedia policies and pursuing POV propaganda. He seems like somebody who knows the policies and seems to believe he can hide his tactics behind wikipedia tags by creating confusion and wasting other editors time. --⇒RoadAhead ^Discuss 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

His more recent edits represent a slight improvement, however he still needs to tone down his rhetoric. I don't support an indefinite block at the moment. PhilKnight (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that was just for distraction for a while. He is back to leverage on those edits and now is using same kind of personal attacks [see HERE]. Regards,--RoadAhead ^Discuss 00:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As seen in this thread from earlier this week, we have yet another returning IP sock of banned user TyrusThomas4lyf. [33] Exact same pattern, changing things on NBA record pages with no discussion (or pretended discussions implied in edit summaries) and refusing to follow consensus, only sourcing things with off-line sources against consensus. His claim of an NBA record by Ben Wallace has been googled by multiple editors and nothing has been found, but he keeps inserting it.

He's been recently banned as 99.141.30.69 (talk · contribs) and 99.141.32.189 (talk · contribs). I'm requesting an admin please check the matter again, it's obviously another sock back tonight. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Dayewalker (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the IP, 75.34.37.202 (talk · contribs), for 48 hours. Next time you report one of these, please include the IP/username in question. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of editors who keep editing in a POV tag on Orgone - see here, [34], here, here, and here. I've tried to get explanations as to why it needs to be there (see here, where I opened a section on it), and the explanations I've been given (as unsatisfactory as they are) I've tried to address as best I can, but Tmtoulouse has only bothered to respond twice, saying that the word 'pseudoscience' needs to be in the lead, citing Gardner as a source (in the link above, and here), and User:Orangemarlin has replied mainly with incorrect statements (see here, and here where he asserts that the article claims orgone exists or works - the article doesn't - and here where he complains about the the use of 'putative energy', which is a direct quote from an (arguably) reliable source.

I don't think any of these concerns merit a POV tag,and while I wouldn't mind trying to address them, the overt hostility of the latest talk page edits from OrangeMarlin, combined with the tendency of both editors to revert without comment - I've had to press them both to participate on the talk page at all, including this note I left on OM's talk page here (which just resulted in more hostility) - makes it abundantly clear that I (personally) am unlikely to get anywhere through discussion.

I'm just trying to figure out what's needed to get rid of the POV tag; can someone please act as an intermediary? --Ludwigs2 22:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

An opening like: "Orgone is a theoretical energy first postulated and then promoted by Wilhelm Reich. There is no evidence that it actually exists." would probably go a long way towards helping. - Nunh-huh 22:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

hunh. ok - I'll throw that out on the talk page (if you don't mind me using your words) and see if it flies. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It would help if there were obvious qualifications inserted into the entry, perhaps like those suggested by nunh-huh. For instance, the second sentence of the lead reads: "Orgone energy in its full sense was described as a universal life force flowing through all things, and responsible for almost all observable phenomena; an omnipresent force in nature that could account for a wide variety of phenomena including, according to sceptical critics, "the color of the sky, gravity, galaxies, the failure of most political revolutions, and a good orgasm." I tend to agree with the assessment that this type of language implies that orgone energy exists, since it offers a description of something without making it clear to the reader that this something is purely theoretical and has not been empirically observed.PelleSmith (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

well, I will say that part of what I was aiming for when I rewrote this article was to give a decent explanation of what Reich thought orgone was without presenting it as remotely true or queering it with too much criticism (and this article has run the gamut both ways, believe you me...). if you all think it's too Reichian, that's easy enough to fix; I'm just hesitant to take any action in the current article climate. I was really hoping that someone here could do something to nudge Orangemarlin and TMtoulouse to commit to forward progress of some sort. any way it goes that's going to be key to resolving this issue. --Ludwigs2 23:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments that this article is a POV pushing mess. The article implies or frankly states outright that Orgone exists. I made numerous searches of reliable sources, and I could not find anyone who confirmed it. It's difficult to prove a negative, but I tried to insert comments that "there is no scientific support for this type of energy" but editors kept removing it. So, the POV tag stays until such time as the article can be made NPOV. Oh, by the Ludwigs, thanks for the notification of this ANI. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

well, all I can say is that I don't think I would have removed a statement like that, and I don't remember ever discussing it with you. and let's be frank - it's logically and scientifically impossible to prove that something doesn't exist; all we can ever say is that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably support the claim (which is certainly the case with Orgone). Claiming orgone does not exist is just as POV as claiming it does; I mean, it literally is a putative energy (an energy that is 'reputed' to be, rather than one the actually 'is'). but this is all something we ought to be discussing on the talk page, yah?

as to your other comment... <shrug> I figured it was best to let other people inform you. can you really object? --Ludwigs2 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

LamyQ (talk) has uploaded several copyrighted images and these have been speedily deleted, but now he is re-uploading them. He has been warned after each violation on his talk page. Is a block in order? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of those who aren't spending a ridiculous number of hours on this (and thank you, btw,

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log

). If he's blocked, he'll just show up again next week with a new account.

Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, there's more past history at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive470#Repeated_copyright_violations_by_Dowhatyoudo and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Image_copyvio_uploads_and_socks. This guy just keeps on coming back. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Since our last posting here, LamyQ (talk · contribs) has reuploaded a previously-deleted copyvio image (5th time for this image), another of his uploads has been determined to be copyvio, and he deleted the speedy deletion tag on that image. He has been warned on each violation. Any chance for speedy action? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that blue box above is distracting people from this thread. If there's still no reply after a while, you might want to put this entire thread at the bottom of the page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now done that. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit skirmish in Richmond, British Columbia, in which I do not want to violate 3rr: [35]. Input requested. Repeated insertion of unsourced, appears to be used as a forum. JNW (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the contested section and removed POV statements as well as issuing a 3RR warning. Report to

3RR if POV editing continues. Toddst1 (talk

) 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass deletion of maps

There are mass deletions of properly-licensed commons map images on over 600 WP pages by Commons Delinker:

) 11:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot;

talk

) 11:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock the bot. It's not the bot's fault. The images were tagged {{subst:nsd}} at the Commons and then deleted, without either tagger or deleter pausing to think about what they were doing. The images have been restored in the meantime, but I don't know if CommonsDelinker has an option somewhere to automatically undo its edits for a particular image. Lupo 11:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, there is no "issue" to "resolve" with the bot.[37] The bot worked exactly as it should. The problem was caused by a human error. Lupo 11:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock done. Lupo 11:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the Block and the Unblock. Even if it was human error that caused the problem, blocking the bot is the quickest and surest way to stop the problem from getting worse - and is not a reflection on the bot itself, as evidenced by the quick unblock. Just wanted to toss that in. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup. It appears the bot had finished with its unlinking at 11:14 UTC. So there was no need any longer to keep it blocked. Lupo 12:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. As Lupo mentioned here, the bot apparently was deleting images that had been restored a short time before; as was unclear that the bot was finished, a block was appropriate to limit the damage.

Kablammo (talk

) 12:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It started up again so I reblocked it and rolled back the additional edits. Haukur (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Haukurth. The problem extends to other projects, per these fairly direct comments.

Kablammo (talk

) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If the problem is continuing, you could probably request a temporary global block of the bot over at Meta until the problem is resolved. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of blocking CommonsDelinker on all wikimedia projects; this bot doesn't delete any images, it only unlinks red links. Anyone who would like to block the bot should rather contact the Commons admin who's making the mistake. guillom 13:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the bot will unlink deleted images even if they have been restored in the meantime. Haukur (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know exactly where to take this, so I'm asking here. This isn't a proposal, just a question that I think could turn into a guideline/policy, or something, based on the views of everyone here.

Onto the topic at hand, since it was not listed, I was wondering about the notability of objects, such as all the parts of a film-set, the specific lens-filters used, the way the filming camera is created/modified to suit the purpose at hand. I honestly don't think each of these tiny objects needs a separate article, yet at the moment, there is no guideline or policy under which they would fall(at least to my knowledge).—

10:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• If the object is the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliabel independent sources, then it meets the general notability guideline. Whether consensus would support a given object will depend on just how far you need to stretch the values of "substantial", "multiple" and "independent", I guess. Some people think
  WP:ITEXISTS is enough, others don't. Guy (Help!
  ) 11:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The individual projects covering entertainment mediums, for instance, would probably have guidelines or consensus on how to cover these things within articles. As far as split-out articles are concern, they are already covered under

13:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also, the more minor the spin-out seems, the more emphasis has to be placed on presenting a rounded picture, supplying sources and actually building an article. It's no good throwing up an article on an aspect of something else and typing out a few sentences, if the only conclusion which can be drawn is "yeah, so?" then it shouldn't have been created. Stubs are good, but you can't expect someone to step in and write an article for you if it's just expansion of a theme, there aren't enough weeks in the hour. Someoneanother 13:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean objects like Fatsuits? The AFD could probably be informally speedy keep'ed at this point, I think. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

the possible objection being raised in the original question is that if, say, a fog filter is used in a particular film, would the use of that filter in that particular film be worth a separate article--and the answer is clearly that it it would not, but that it would be discussed in the article on the film if significant, and possibly mentioned in the article on the filter --and just conceivably an article on the production of the film might be justified if such production is sufficiently extensive to warrant a spinout article-- which would be extremely rare indeed, but that use in that film by itself would never be worth a specific article. I hope the question was not asked as a preliminary for proposing the elimination of actually notable settings or the like--if it was asked to get a statement that there is a limit of appropriate minuteness, yes, I at certainly do agree to that. Following up on the example just above, a specific fatsuit would not be worth an article. DGG (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, say one finds an article that lists such a thing, as in, a non-notable minute object. Under what criteria could it be speedily deleted under?—

Improve

06:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be something funny going on. Recently, I discovered a user account with the rather absurd name of User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese, which had been used to vandalise the edit histories of several articles. When I checked its log, I discovered that there is another user account called User:Nefbmn which seems to exist only for nationalist provocations. The user and talk pages contain slanderous comments. In particular, this user seems rather obssessed with another user who now appears to have been banned (see user contributions for proof). I believe User:Nefbmn needs to be warned one last time. If this user does not change their behaviour or cease editing altogether, this user should be blocked indefinitely. 122.105.145.124 (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing much to do here, the first account is blocked and the second hasn't edited for a week. Whilst there's a bit of
  soapboxing on their user/talk pages, I don't see anything slanderous. Black Kite
  07:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogorm again

relisted as discussion evolved to ban proposalToddst1 (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like additional eyes on a situation that seems to be growing out of hand. Bogorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to think the best defence is a good offence. He or she has lashed out at both me and Tiptoety (talk · contribs) more than once. This sockpuppet report seems to capture most of it, rather than posting dozens of diffs which I don't quite have time to pull together right now. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say continue the SSP and grab an uninvolved admin when ready. I'll note the RFCU does not rule out the possibility of socks, just that proxies may have been used, so continued investigation is appropriate. If he keeps up the attacks, try and ignore them, he clearly is warned by this point and will be blocked if they continue. MBisanz ^talk 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(To Toddst1) The diff is a reliable manner of demonstration - the beginning of

WP:AGF presents en effet and undeniably an incident. Bogorm (talk

) 18:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am an editor from Bulgaria, the IP-impostor is an editor from California. My IP-address is static. Sapienti pauca. Bogorm (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to find an example of this 'lashing out' and I can't. Edit summaries?Yeago (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC) UTC)

I am grateful to you for you cherishing

this user was reported to have blanked ( 10 times !) large sections of information regarding Chechnya and South Ossetia simply because the sources are Russian (he deletes even scientifical books and numbers quoted from them !) His edits are only in this topic and are far from impartiality. This edit of his is in direct relationship to your term "Article hen" - he obliterates sources from Ukraine, USA, Russia and Israel and even admits that he has no knowledge of the Russian language (demonstration in the first diff) and has not asked any knowledgeable person - this is an instringent and disruptive deletionism, please take the case in consideration. I hope I am not the sole editor who is indignant about people with no knowledge of the source language but are zealous and intransigent in light-mindedly erasing whole sections (reckless deletionism). Bogorm (talk

) 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia and as such I don't think your complaints about his not knowing the language apply. As for me, I am not an admin. I think you are confused--you gave a link to 'his edit' but the link went to one of your own edits.Yeago (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, the diff has been redressed. The previous one showed the refutation of his 3RR claim, while copying I must have duplicated it inadvertently. Bogorm (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogorm continues to insert extremely poorly sourced and dubious material. He's been asked several times not to, and has been explained several times on the talk page that that his contributions break certain policies, but since his 2 week block for herassment expired he went on with it. Anyone who reverts him is accused of "vandalism". Now he seems to go around everywhere accusing me of past "vandalism", probably because I once reported him for a clear 3rr violation. I already tried to explain him that the report for 3rr was not meant personally, but this was in vain.

) 20:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As requested, here are the diffs of lashing out at other editors that prompted me to start this discussion:

• accusing Tiptoety of negligence
• accusing Tiptoety of attacking Bogorm
• accusing me of being "reckless" and "inept"
• accusing me of bias
• accusing me of disruption
• accusing NJGW (talk · contribs) of disruption
• accusing two different editors of "inane or derisable" edits User:Bogorm/Inane - now deleted as an attack page (admin examination)

I would postulate that at this point it is not all the other editors that this editor has interacted with that are disruptive - rather, Bogorm is disruptive. After this editor and its sockpuppet have earned 4 blocks in a very short time, I believe Wikipedia would be better off without this editor's contributions. I believe it is time for a ban. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what to tell. I tried to explain WP policies to Bogorm [38], [39].. The whole idea was to sit out the block, behave quietly, do not blame anyone, and edit something non-controversial for a while. But he is doing everything to inflame the conflict. He hurts himself and unfortunately others.Biophys (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogorm should definitely be banned if he feels so strongly about having his way. This is a serious abuse, if not a big waste of time for everyone who has to deal with him. ~ Troy (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this. His having four blocks in a short span of time and then to return after the last block without a change in editorial attitude and an unwillingness to work within established guidelines and policies, even so far as making an attempt to engage in civil consensus debates, shows he believes his way is the right way and be damned with any other. There appears no middle ground for appeal when any attempt to engage him results in acclamations of bias, recklessness, ineptitude, etc. against his fellow editors. It is exactly this kind of behavior which drove me away from the

2008 South Ossetia war article and to work on less contentious subjects for a while. One can only take so much incivility.--«JavierMC»|Talk

03:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. There is nothing to object.Biophys (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

More here, here, here, here, and here during this discussion makes the outcome pretty clear. Indefinitely blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please comment whether we can create a Category:Genocide against Sri Lanka's Tamils and include

) 06:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• In general, such categories exist where there is a well-sourced parent article i.e.
  Rwandan Genocide. The closest I see to that at the moment is Sri Lankan Civil War (see also the categories attached there). As an aside, note that we already have Category:Genocide and Category:Human rights abuses. Black Kite
  10:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Black Kite for the detail. Category:Genocide is the right one reference to Civilian killed, child wounded in SLAF attack and the Sri Lankan defence ministry's false claim.Christina71 (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Added on
  Gotabhaya Rajapaksa - He is accused of being complicit in an ongoing genocide against Sri Lanka's Tamils and Category:Genocide, please comment?Christina71 (talk
  ) 13:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Ping pong. I don't think we can use such a disputed title for the category. I think Category:Sri Lanka Civil War would be much better. Wars are ugly and have atrocities. You can add the sourced info to a relevant article, but I do not think there is a sufficient preponderance of references (yet) to establish "genocide" as the most neutral way to describe the situation. Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's not forget that "genocide" is a legal term, not simply a rhetorical one. In the case of Bosnia and Rwanda the category is appropriate as a reflection of the verdicts of the courts. I'm pretty sure no such legal determination exists for the Sri Lankan conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Jehochman, ChrisO, I agree "genocide" is a legal and removed Category:Genocide on
  Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.Christina71 (talk
  ) 13:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Technological problems

My keyboard is acting weird> I have to turn on the CAPS key just in order to type with lower case letters> I cant make punctuations because my keyboard is working backwards as you can see when I try to put a period I get this > or a comma I get this < please help me this is so weird> Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what administrative help is required here, unless you want me to recommend a vendor for a new keyboard (hint: eBay).

chat

} 22:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Try typing with the keyboard rotated 180 degrees. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

lol - I'll leave a tech note on his talk page. --Ludwigs2 23:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have spilled something on the keyboard, cleaning and drying out the keyboard might help. Running a virus scan on your PC would be advisable in case it's not the keyboard that's at fault. Hope this helps. Nick (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything's all good now, I don't know what caused the problem, but I think switching user accounts (Windows XP) solved it. I am running a virus scan now, so thanks to everyone for their suggestions. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If you do spill Coke on the keyboard, disconnect it immediately and run it through the dishwasher. (Wash cycle only - not dry cycle.) That actually works. However, let it air-dry for about a week before trying it again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This just means the software missed a key-up or key-down event, and the keyboard and operating system got out of sync. Pressing and releasing each shift, control, and alt key, and the caps lock and num lock keys will usually get things back in sync. --John Nagle (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

XP doing that? Forsooth! VISTA, I could see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to use the wash-cycle... just rince it off with distilled water and put it in the oven at 150 degrees for some time. ---

WRE

) 17:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Before doing that, rinse it with lime-away to remove corrosion, then put it in a crust and after you've baked it you'll have a key lime-away pie. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Or you could aim in another direction when looking up porn. And don't tell me you aren't. HalfShadow 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a little too much information, don'cha know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Naughty IP returns

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

Apparently recently returned from a 1 week block, this IP is now edit warring and telling us to fellate him. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Article has been semi'd, so that should handle it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be too hard on him, he's just here looking for a date. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ain't we all, honey....ain't we all.

Gladys J Cortez

13:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yah, shoor, yoo betcha. And how's it working out so far? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(...says the guy who dresses up as women. Tricking Elmer. Yeah. Sure.) HalfShadow 21:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Elmer is so easy to fool, I've written a book about him: "Gullible's Travails". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiport Returns

Resolved

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

Not 1 week after my

Talk:Fox News Channel#Deletion of FNC Article). Beyond all of that, he tried twice to speedily delete the entire article because he doesn't agree with the sentence in question and refuses to read or respect consensus. Can someone please end this disruptive behavior? //Blaxthos ( t / c

) 11:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to give Wikiport the benefit of the doubt with regards to the speedy deletions, however removing the text from the introduce is plain disruptive, and this talk comment is full of mild accusations at Blaxthos, in spite of having been painfully explained that the introduction reflects the consensus of the wider community, due to much debate at RFC and talk pages. I gave the user a final warning last time, so I have blocked for 24 hours.

chat

) 12:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, John. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

He just removed the block notice so I restored it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically' he's allowed to do that. HalfShadow 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please try to impart some clue here? I blocked this person a couple of days ago for inappropriate nationalist soapboxing on his user page (and edit-warring over it); now he's filling up his talk page with the same kind of soapboxing again, but this time mixed in with long-winded complaints about me personally. He's beginning to get on my nerves. This editor's activities on this project have consisted almost entirely of nationalist trolling and spurious complaints against perceived opponents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I trust this suffices. If someone wants to point them in the direction of opening a RfC or ArbCom request (on either or both matters) then fine, but I don't think they need fill up their talkpages with their views. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Puttyschool (talk · contribs) I have discussed it a million times, I've recently tried to be fair with Putty and knew that he/she was a newbie from a couple of months ago, and I cited Wikipedia's policies in good faith. The thing that ticks me off the most is that I'm wasting my time, pretty much. I get this in return. Does Putty expect me to think that's fair? ~ Troy (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that user is just shy of a

three-revert rule violation on Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is semi-protected. ~ Troy (talk

) 19:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You asked me to look at this, and it looks to me like an edit-war, or skirmish at least. There seems to be a lack of consensus as to an appropriate source for whether the number of Christians in Egypt is 10 precent, 10 to 20 percent. I'm not an admin, but if I were, I would probably protect the page until you all can reach some kind of consensus as to a valid source and hence a presumably valid figure. If the user violates 3RR, though, take him to

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

21:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In regards to my fourth revert on that article, I admit to breaking the three-revert rule while I should not have done so. I promise not to do so again and also reverted that last rv as a sign that I'm willing to use a better method. If someone can help me out, please do so. ~ Troy (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And you've committed one. Oh joy. Stop the edit warring, or you're both in for short blocks. Figure it out on the talk page. If you can't, try some

dispute resolution. lifebaka++

21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to do, and I think I've already tried that. ~ Troy (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The very reason why I reverted too many times was because Putty and myself were both engaged in the edit warring as much as we were in the discussion. I was caught in the act the moment I had one more revert than Putty did, and that was enough to start a new mess. I don't know exactly how to resolve this. Is there anything else I could do, or am I infinitely stuck with the discussion page? This isn't the first time that happened. ~ Troy (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the other person is edit warring or not, you shouldn't yourself edit war. There are some very limited situations in which multiple reversions are acceptable. This wasn't one of them. Build a consensus on the talk page for your preferred version, and then depend on the other participants to work with you to keep that version that way. 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. I would commend

WP:1RR to you as a general practice instead. Another thing to try is to see if you can incorporate the concern(s) of the other party(s)... "teach the controversy" as it were. ++Lar: t/c

21:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. ~ Troy (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all Troy is accusing me of using IPs, so I want to check both of us for using IPs and socks.
Toy is ignoring all discussion on talk pages, and insisting to force his point of view, about a subject I never heard about it before, which is using wrong estimated population records from a biased unreliable source as I already explained to him different time in talk:Egypt and Talk:Religion_in_Egypt at the same time we have accurate records from many reliable sources, also I think other editors already explain this in the past, but he is always dropping the discussions in talk page.
So please check both articles Egypt and Religion_in_Egypt history and dissuasions in talk pages, as I don’t have enough energy to write to much as Troy, and I don’t even think Troy POV is a neutral POV related to this subject.« PuTTY^SchOOL 21:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In regards to those IPs, don't bother. I don't care about the IPs anymore, I care about the dispute. I'm not insisting on forcing my POV, as said on the bottom of the talk page. This is exactly what I'm talking about, I wouldn't be into edit warring at all if Putty would note that I included his/her figures/sources. ~ Troy (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the edit warring, it is quite meaningless until a

consensus is reached. I think what matters is the end result, meaning that whatever Putty and I can agree on should probably serve as the final revision. I would like someone to help by clarifying this. ~ Troy (talk

) 22:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wandering over to

WP:DR is probably in order. The folks over there should be able to help the two of you. Cheers. lifebaka++

23:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It would be a hugely helpful if there is anyone who could help out to avoid further issues. The best part of DR is when it's over and done with so that I can bring myself to sigh a relief. ~ Troy (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Andrew Kelly

Andrew has recently been taking part in the RfA of another user and in doing so has expressed some extremely offensive opinions. Andrew, who is "too conservative for conservapedia" (his words not mine), has claimed amongst other things that; atheists support murder, those who do not believe in god will burn in hell, and atheists should not be given a role of authority (even on a website). Infact, I don't even need to provide links for this, feel free to review Andrews "contributions" in recent days, it's all there. Personally, I don't think I support murder and I don't want to burn in hell either. God only wonders what poor Andrew thinks of my gay friends. Would appreciate if this is dealt with, it would be a little hard to hand out 3 million incivility warring for all the "non-christian" editors insulted. — Realist² 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If a legitimate Christian user is blocked (I've seen it happen several times), it would take an admin to unblock them. And, like I said, there are very few, if any, Christian admins. Most admins are atheists and they would not want to risk loosing their admin status to unblock a user they don't agree with / I do not believe that a Christian should willingly vote a non-Christian into a position of power, whether it be the power to rule a country or the power to delete a page on a website. - This is just a taster of what you will witness upon reviewing Andrews edits. — Realist² 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fear not - hell doesn't exist, so you won't go there.

To be honest, he looks like a straw man to me. Don't feed the trolls. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To those reviewing my edits, please review all of them, not just the edits that my opponents bring to your attention. Please read them in context, please do not only read the misquotes. Thank you! --

talk

) 03:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, we have given you ample space to express your opinion accurately, it's crystal clear that you have offended many, and don't seem to understand why. — Realist² 03:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand why people are offended. I am just asking that people read my comments in context. --

talk

) 03:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Context of what? Your version of the good old book? You have expressed the opinion that non christians should not be given a position of authority. — Realist² 03:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make sure they read what I actually said, not what you say I said. There is no need to yell at me using all bold comments. You are just as biased as I am, just in the opposite direction. --

talk

) 03:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment was not meant to appear in bold, check my edit summary, I quickly corrected it. — Realist² 03:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, I won’t hold it against you then. --

talk

) 03:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidently I was just talking to myself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is therea violation of policy or I dunno, something for us to do here instead of complaining about the views of an editor, I'd like to hear it. There was no lasting harm done on the RfA so thats out. Has the user (diffs here needed) injected his biases into an article? If not, ignore what you find offensive until it becomes egregious to the point where it would be disruptive without you engaging. (Like Kafziel said, don't feed.)--Tznkai (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Enough. The only place where Andrew Kelly's personal life philosphy is relevant is article space. If people do not want to be offended by his beliefs, they should stop talking to him about them. The abuse to which he has been subjected, for an oppose at RFA that any bureaucrat would likely have discounted, is probably the most graphic violation of

) 03:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't you two have separate corners you can stand in or something? Jtrainor (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose trouts all around and some sort of article editing penance. John Reaves 07:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• This has been closed too early. A remark like the abortion loving atheists who support senseless murder requires a bit more than dismissing this as a case for simple troutslapping. Such religiously fueled hateful generalisations have no place in talk and Wikipedia space, either. Everyme 12:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  Agreed, but only if Jimmi Hugh (talk · contribs) gets the same treatment; Jimmiy's preceding comments caused Andrew's response, and included inflammatory gems such as "laughing at the fact they believe in an imaginary man in the sky" and "masses of drone religious idiots". fish&karate 12:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're right. Both indulged in uncalled-for antagonisation against large groups of people. But I still don't see how that makes any of it better, to the extent that it requires no more than a troutslap? Everyme 12:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've given strongly worded warnings to the pair of them, for making inflammatory and unhelpful comments. Further rubbish from either of them will result in a block. Wikipedia is not the place for inflamed religious soapboxing and poisonous generalisations. fish&karate 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so offended, Everyme? What have you to do with this? --

talk

) 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyme is, I presume, rightly reluctant to see Wikipedia serve as a venue for this unhelpful, endless fighting. fish&karate 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And right he is. I am feeling very bad that it started with a userbox on my page and I agree that everyone descending into personal attacks because of that, even those defending me, are not doing the encyclopedia a favor. I hope we can just get back to editing now and admins who are not involved like fish&karate can sort out through it and give out warnings / deal with it where necessary.

@fish&karate: On a side note, if I may request it from you, would you mind checking my RfA and moving the discussions to its talk page where necessary (i.e. where they only clutter the RfA). I don't want to do it myself and I think it should be done by someone who has no involvement. Regards SoWhy 12:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do. fish&karate 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. fish&karate 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Feh. Andrew is free to state what his religious beliefs are, and others are free to ignore or discount them. What he may not do is assert opinion as fact, especially not in article space. I don't think that is happening here, and I think everyone would be a good deal happier if they disengaged at this point. We're not going to ban him for being a fundie, and we're not going to ban the thers for being Godless heathens. Try to respect sincerely helf religious beliefs even while disagreeing with them, and focus on content please. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There are good and bad ways to express oneself. I think Andrew is smart enough to know when his comments crossed the (fuzzy) reasonable line from debate to polemic, but I think a warning will suffice at this point. You're right that everyone should disengage, and that content should be focussed on. fish&karate 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's leave it. Andrew Kelly and others have their beliefs, and others have theirs. Perhaps his statements are inflammatory, but it's not surprising to hear them, given that many people have literally asked for his opinion. Now, perhaps throwing the bible around isn't the best way to respond to challenges by non-Christians, but it's not helpful to throw fuel on the fire by harassing him about it. This drama may be avoided by not talking to Andrew Kelly about religious matters, aptly described above as "sitting in different corners". I don't see that this thread has a further purpose other than to inflame things. Werdna 12:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this can accurately be filed under "freedom to state what one's religious beliefs are". What's worse, Andrew replied to my suggestion of striking the remark in question (like Jimmi Hugh struck his initial oppose) like this. Everyme 13:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not wanting to comment on the issue itself but from what I can see Jimmi Hugh struck this comment because he decided to withdraw his support. I don't know if he wanted to withdraw the comment itself or not, but I find it best not to speculate about it. SoWhy 13:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop throwing that comment down my throat if you are not going to quote it in context. As I have already told you, I was responding to a ridiculously stupid comment about religious people who worship an imaginary man in the sky who supports the senseless killing of innocent people. --

talk

) 13:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You responded in an exactly as unacceptable way. And your comment remains unstruck. Everyme 13:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Let it go, please, Everyme. Andrew has been warned for his comment already - further prodding is unhelpful. fish&karate 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Everyme 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Give it a rest everyone. Andrew Kelly is entitled to his views just as SoWhy is entitled to his. I think it is a mistake to dump on SoWhy for the userbox (and a mistake in principle, though not necessarily in strategy, to change the userbox) and it is a mistake to provide AK a forum where he can vent his views. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 13:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the WMF have any non-discrimination policy?

If so, provide a link? If there is, how would that relate to RFA and volunteer community actions? I have a very queasy feeling about the allowance of supports or opposes in any kind of official community actions, or "standing" in response for any kind of religious belief, political belief, or private standing. Opposing someone for RFA for not being Christian? Whats next, opposing for being a Muslim? A Jew? Black? Gay? For not being a Jew? For not being from a given country? This is a slippery slope to allow any of that kind of thing in, and should be encoded out before we get nasty situations that could have repercussions beyond our silly little RFA practices.

) 12:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Users are already opposed regularly for being "too young". It wouldn't surprise me if people went further and started discriminating against certain religious beliefs. --

how do you turn this on

13:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Or lack of religious beliefs. Everyme 13:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see here To quote: "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." Hope this helps, Gazimoff 13:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see

WP:DICK for something that applies on-wiki. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 13:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin. This is hardly new. I think prohibiting grounds for opposing is very dangerous. If someone is opposing for spurious reasons, ignore them. If they are being offensive, tell them so. (I don't see "Oppose. Is atheist." as offensive, just as ridiculous.) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Closing bureaucrats are entirely capable of assessing the validity or invalidity of a oppose's (or a support's) reasoning. fish&karate 13:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sam, some people do find it offensive. We can't help that. What would you say if someone said "Oppose - is black"? --

how do you turn this on

13:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to say oppose because a candidate is black, or an atheist, or a christian, or has a lame user name, or whatever, I say let them do it. That sort of statement says more about them than it does about the rest of us and we should just move on. What is the point of trying to change the vote when the vote is a !vote and the entire discussion is visible to the closing bureaucrat anyway. And, if a crat starts seriously considering this sort of !vote, it'll get noticed soon enough. No. There is absolutely no sense in trying to shout down a !vote of that sort. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are not going to drag this around to yet another discussion on "age discrimination" on RFAs. fish&karate 13:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was more hoping that Sam would answer my question. He says above the solution is to ignore. That doesn't solve anything. People are still going to be offended. Unnecessary hurting of other editors should be avoided at all costs. --

how do you turn this on

13:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

HDYTTO, I really do think you're taking this way too far. In the hopefully very unlikely event someone is enough of an idiot to oppose on such spurious and discriminatory grounds, they're probably going to get torn up by the community, smeared across five different noticeboards, blocked, unblocked, and reblocked until they get some sense knocked into them, just like all the rest of the drama we put up with here. Comments like that aren't tolerated and you know they aren't, so this is a non-issue. The reason people occasionally oppose for being too young is not because they believe teenagers or pre-teens shouldn't be admins, it's because the nominee hasn't demonstrated that they are trustworthy or responsible enough to use the tools. Maturity level has a lot to do with how much we trust someone not to abuse the buttons, and so is taken seriously provided the person commenting that is being sensible and not

a/c

) 16:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) This is my read on the situation. Don't be a dick. If someone is being a dick, and it has to do with prejudices, you can try, calmly and patiently talking with them, explaining why its inappropriate to express their opinions in that way, or you can ignore them. If it rises to the point of a disruptive personal attack there is a case by case balancing test to be made, and contact a third party, a mediator, or an adminstrator at your discretion. Now, is there anything that an admin actually needs to do here?--Tznkai (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing bureaucrats are allowed to discount such spurious opposes. Practice has, however, shown that they never do. — Coren ^(talk) 21:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The non-discrimination policy has little relevance. Admins are not hired by the foundation and the foundation is not saying "we don't want this person or that person as an admin" so this has little bearing on things. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I fail to see how the Wikimedia Foundation and its policies have any relevance to the factors the Wikipedia community chooses to apply when supporting or opposing candidates for its internal roles. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What someone has on their user page is a perfectly valid question to raise, and should not be censored. For example, if the guy who had the "I can make crystal meth" user box applied for adminship, it would be fair to question that. Raising a question doesn't mean the question has any merit. That's up to the deciders to decide. But censoring it is not good. Let the extremist editor expose himself (pardon the ironic metaphor) for what he is. Don't censor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

An aside

I found this discussion based on the issues raised on foundation-l. On that list, it was made to appear that the user is simply saying "Oppose, user is not christian", but based on the above discussion, if I understand it correctly, his real complaint is having to do with a perceived lack of admins willing to unblock christian users, and a lack of christian admins. While I think that's completely ridiculous, I can see how that's a logical line of reasoning for someone who feels that way. I can see that this guy is actually opposing in good faith here, unlike, say, Kurt. So, while it may be a good idea for 'crats to discount this (I don't have much faith they will, but anyway), it'd be a bad idea to sanction the editor in this case, and I say that as a person who mistakenly was going to come in and strongly consider blocking the editor for disruption. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As an extra aside, can we get some admin eyes on Andrew's talk page? It's getting into a complete mess with raging religious debates, and Andrew saying he's going to preach, etc., and I advised him not to do such a thing.

T

) 00:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Bickering archived, page watched, invite other admins to do the same. Further incivility will bring the wrath of the

almighty cabal on everyone's head.--Tznkai (talk

) 16:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Or the wrath of

El Kabong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*Usertalk watchlisted* L'Aquatique[talk] 03:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This user continues to 'ip-hop' in order to continue editing the articles: Lech Kaczyński and Law and Justice. Despite cautions, warnings and polite notes and reminders [41], this user obstinately continues to vandalize these articles by inserting non-NPOV and biased info.

Here is the

report I compiled: (this would make things a lot easier)

• 149.254.192.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism, including 1, 2, 3, 3 – Flewis^(talk) 13:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Note: This user is "ip hopping" in order to edit the article "Lech Kaczyński". S/he was previously here: 149.254.192.208 (talk · contribs) --Flewis^(talk) 13:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Now here: 149.254.192.224 (talk · contribs) - Could someone please report this to AN/I? Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 13:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Here as well: 149.254.192.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism, including 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3 – Flewis^(talk) 13:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just rangeblock the range that all of them are coming from. Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

13:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

ec I've blocked 149.254.192.208 and semi-protected Lech Kaczyński and Law and Justice for two weeks.--Slp1 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As Erik the Red 2 pointed out, why not simply Range-block the entire isp for a short period of time? (Persistent vandalism calls for drastic action)--Flewis^(talk) 13:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Might be worth waiting a short while to un-semi the articles in case they find another IP range to edit from.Black Kite 14:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

African - at least, 'African' - fraudsters have been linking to Wikipedia's article on

16:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's better to keep the actual discussion over at Talk:EgyptAir Flight 990 instead of here, so I'll be replying there. lifebaka++ 17:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree there. I just wanted more eyes. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the results of said linkage, it may be best to take this issue to the

Original research, or Reliable sources noticeboard(s). Last I checked, linking to other places on the web wasn't a crime (despite the best efforts of a couple "mainstream" companies a few years ago - the names may escape me, but the hilarity never shall). Are these "409" ("DEAREST FRIEND, I WRITE TO INFORM YOU blah blah blah") fraudsters? Badger Drink (talk

) 04:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

People still fall for the

Nigerian scam? HalfShadow

05:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

you can't fool all of the people, all of the time, but you can always fool some of the people, some of the time. --Ludwigs2 05:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They don't need to fool all the people to get rich, or even very many of them. It only takes a few - the "carpet-bombing" approach that is what spam is. However, I fixed 'em - I made a donation in their name to a well-known charity that sends out endless mailings and sells their mailing list to other spammers. What goes around, comes around. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

06:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just redirected the page to Classified advertising, as it was unsourced and as noted above a great target for spam dumps. There wasn't enough in the article to worry about, but if anyone wants to merge anything to the bit discussing online classifieds on the new target, that would be fine. I'll keep an eye on it as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call. There is nothing obvious that one can say about online classifieds which is not inherently obvious from the title, and it's an open invitation to spammers. I guess they will now move in to classified advertising, so some watching of that is in order as well. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I whacked in a {{

NoMoreLinks}} for good measure. MER-C

10:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist Not Updating

Resolved

Currently, my watchlist shows the most up-to-date edit (even for this page) as about 1:27am EST (current time 4:01am EST). Obviously, something is goofed in updating of watchlists and edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Me too, but the best place for something like this is probably Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) since there's not much any administrators can do. AniMate 08:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. I figure it is being worked on as we type. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a note at the top of the watchlist saying "Watchlists are currently broken! This will be fixed shortly." I presume that means they're onto it. Orderinchaos 08:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just talked to someone on the tech IRC channel and I was told "there's nobody around to look into it" and "it's not sufficiently urgent to summon anybody". So, I doubt this will be fixed anytime soon. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So, ironically, this happened on no one's watch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's working now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

don't know if this rises to the level of sockpuppetry, but Happy puff and this IP (and maybe others) are posting the same boilerplate vandalism about 'President Lee Kuan Yew Singapore'. can someone look into it? --Ludwigs2 08:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Academic Challenger blocked User:Happy puff about 5 minutes ago, not sure about the anon user. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• This ip has recently been blocked for spamming the same message. It looks like they will ip hop to achieve their aims, so can admins keep an eye out for AIV reports. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

61.7.179.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- look at the contribs since reporting at AIV. — Alan^✉ 09:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, blocked at last I see -- thanks. — Alan^✉ 09:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

) 01:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We've been having some issues with block evasion on Wikiversity the past week or so by User:Moulton, using IPs and signing with "characters" he uses for dramatic flair. Apparently he's doing that here now: see this edit for example. Just something to keep an eye on... his IPs are dynamic and probably widely shared, so be cautious! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit of background for those editors – like me – who do not follow events on Wikiversity: Moulton was blocked indef by Jimbo[42], who subsequently posted his rationale here. – Sadalmelik ☎ 16:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A little more background: Moulton was blocked during the situation that has sparked claims of an "ID Cabal" (these claims were mostly instigated by him). He spent time after being blocked on Wikipedia by collecting personal information on those involved and "analyzing" their contributions. He began using Wikiversity servers for that purpose, and started posting personal information there, which brought about the first censures against him. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a problem with two editors on

, an article I've fully vetted, re-written and am trying to get to GA status. The article has been largely free of disputes and stable since the rewrite several months ago.

Another editor and I were discussing converting over the citation style to make editing the HTML easier for them when

.

My introduction to

.

I'm unsure if they are working together on purpose but they are effectively causing the article to fail the GA process for being unstable, amongst other concerns, and I see no future in trying to complete the clean-up with two users edit-warring and inserting problematic and POV language. I would appreciate others looking at this and I'm uncomfortable reverting either of them and don't see engaging them any further as a good path for me. Just writing all this up has taken away the rest of my time for editing today. I have to get some sleep but I think the above lays out what I see as the issue.

-- Banjeboi

14:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that these users should be discussing on the talk page instead of reverting. Have you contacted kotra (talk · contribs), who is CadenS's mentor? Although that is an option, I expect editors to be responsible for their actions, and not require a mentor talk them out of disproportionately defensive posts. CadenS is clearly passionate about gay-themed articles and has been asked to avoid them in the past, to my memory. Though his comments about E.O. Green school shooting correctly indicated the poor writing and layout of the article, the stressful way it was brought about was unnecessary. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Moni, Benji never once initiated any type of discussion on this matter. He went and filed this report instead. Let me remind you that Mr. Benji was reverting left, right and center. How convenient to see how you leave that part out. Furthermore, Kotra did not talk me out of anything. You insinuating such a thing is insulting to both Kotra and I. And another thing, since when is rape, murder or shooting's suddenly classified as "homosexual-themed" type of articles? That's a narrow way of thinking on your part and I'm shocked that you would post such a thing here.

) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I find Benj's choice of words ("they", "their", "them"), to describe me personally, as very offensive. I have a name. My name is Caden. That's C-A-D-E-N. I'm also a male. That's M-A-L-E. Therefore my gender is "he", and not "they" or "them" or "their". Got it? Now, in regards to the word "homosexual", this is the correct word to be used. It's used in the same way as the word "heterosexual" is often used. Homosexual is only considered pejorative by those who support the political correct movement. I did change some of Benji's POV content because he was misrepresenting what those sources stated. He deliberately did that to mislead the readers just like he's been doing with the E. O. article by adding the POV "see also" sections that serve his biased POV. The real issue here is the issue of POV language used by Benji and him misleading the readers by insinuating this in the main article. I also find it highly insulting that he is accusing me of working together with Ave Caesar on purpose. I've never spoken to User:Ave Caesar, and he or she has never had any contact with me. Furthermore, Benji claims I took a dig at him? Please. I was defending myself. I was replying to an attack made by him (on the E.O. page) towards me when he had the nerve to say: "Let's not paint all gay people as predators or liars or anything else". I found his statement offensive, bizarre, and completely uncalled for.

talk

) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Caden: Chill, no one can tell your gender on teh Internet. A simple "Oh, btw I'm male" would have done. Your "get it?" etc is very hostile. I am sure no rudeness was intended. People on Wikipedia refer to other editors as "he" "she" and "they" almost at random it seems, and it is generally best to ignore or tactfully inform the editor using the incorrect term. As regarding "homosexual" vs. "gay" that is a content dispute and belongs on the talk page of the article - but the parade is certainly the "gay pride" parade and not the "homosexual pride" parade, so at least one of your edits is simply wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, it's me. I haven't been contacted, but as you say, all editors are responsible for their own actions (though I would appreciate it if these issues were discussed with me occasionally). I want to clear up a few things, though. Caden has already apologized for some of the issues raised above, and has voluntarily maintained long breaks from LGBT-related articles in the past. As for this recent incident (changing "gay" to "homosexual" on

Jesse Dirkhising), that seems like a minor content dispute that you should discuss with each other first before bringing up here. So concerning Caden, I'm not sure what this incident report is for, since it's a minor dispute and has not yet received much discussion. Concerning Ave Caesar, I don't really have an opinion about their edits, except I very much doubt they are conspiring in any way with Caden. -kotra (talk

) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Killer, I'm sorry but you are so wrong. Benji knows full well that I'm a male and he knows my name very well. He and I have had conflicts in the past concerning the Dirkhising and E. O. pages. Furthermore, I know nothing about such parades and have no interest in them. And for the record, I made no edits on any parade so I have no clue what you're talking about. Also, I agree with Kotra. He should of have been contacted regardless of my actions. He is my adopter.

talk

) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, did he? Still not seeing why you should bother to care. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? How would you like it if I called you "it", huh? Because that's basically how he's referring to me on this report. And that sir, is why I bother to care.

talk

) 09:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a side-note concerning this: "I expect editors to be responsible for their actions, and not require a mentor talk them out of disproportionately defensive posts.". I actually

disapproved of that comment, and I did not "talk him out of it". -kotra (talk

) 18:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a content dispute and not really a matter for ANI. This should be on the discussion on the article talk page. The issue is over the inclusion of encyclopedic language. The user wishes to replace "homosexual" with the slang term "gay." --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Sorry I see this as an editing dispute. Ave Caesar's only participation there has been disruptive, IMHO, coupled with their other, apparently anti-LGBT concerns are also alarming. With CadenS, his changing gay to homosexual, reinforced too by Ave Caesar, along with misrepresenting sources is basic vandalism that should be reverted under normal circumstances. Gay is not considered slang and that both these editors fail to see its pejorative connotations is also disquieting. That CadenS couples this with bad faith accusations and hostility aren't encouraging. Wikipedia isn't a battleground or a place for POV pushing. If any of the gay people involved self-identified as homosexual it's usually good to put that in the article as such. Instead mainstream society and media outlets use gay. I find having to explain this is this decade a bit odd - homosexual is used predominately in conservative religious venues to vilify LGBT people - its use on Wikipedia is dubious - especially on biographies. I came here because I'm trying to get the article to GA, I see these two as disrupting that process. I want to nip editing warring in the bud here. Considering each of their recent actions and looking at editing histories of these two my concerns are justified. The article had been stable for six months - with gay intact - why now the interest? Why now the changes?

To CadenS specifically, you assert "Please. I was defending myself." here is the comment I made in full

“

CadenS, please stop, taking little digs at me, or anyone, isn't helping improve this article. You could have let it go with Exploding Boy's comment that indeed another person in the source stated it was likely untrue. And just as some gay kids lie about heterosexual boys, heterosexual boys lie about such things as well. Let's not paint all gay people as predators or liars or anything else. People lie, let's stay on to improving the content.

”

If you felt I was attacking you I apologize, that was not my intent at all, I was trying to figure out what actionable items on that article needed to be addressed as there was a POV tag you had re-inserted and the consensus was that POV concerns had largely been addressed.

-- Banjeboi

23:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that it is an editing dispute. Therefore, it should first be discussed at

WP:RFC would be the proper place. And I sympathize that this dispute has come at an inconvenient time for your GA review, but these things happen. -kotra (talk

) 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, upon rereading, I now realize you mean "editing dispute" to mean "a dispute over how a user is editing", as opposed to "a dispute over particular edits". If that is what you meant, I disagree. I don't see any problem with how users are editing, except that there isn't enough discussion (which is the fault of all three parties). -kotra (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My experience with CadenS on this article in particular and then again on

-- Banjeboi

03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I had thought the hostility at

blanking is usually ok on your own talk page, that particular part of Ave Caeser's behavior seems fine) -kotra (talk

) 07:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My experiences with Benji have been unpleasant. I feel he's anti-heterosexual, anti-Christian and anti-conservative due to his biased POV. I don't know what his problem is with conservatives, or Christians or even us heterosexuals. But his edits are more than clear he has some serious issues concerning the three. He often assumes bad faith and he's assuming bad faith once again by attacking my good faith edits as "vandalism". My edits are fine and have all been done in good faith. Benji's edits are questionable, in my opinion. "Gay" is a slang liberal word. "Straight" is a slang liberal word. Homosexual and heterosexual are the correct words to be used in a encyclopedia. I am not using the word "homosexual" in a pejorative way (like Benji accuses me of), and I highly doubt that Ave Caesar is using it in a negative way either. But as always, Benji assumes bad faith over any edits made by any editor who does not share his homosexual POV, regardless of the topics. I wonder why? Could it be because of his problems with heterosexuals, Christians and conservatives? He claims: "homosexual is used predominately in conservative religious venues to vilify LGBT people". Please. That's PC nonsense and is not true. You cannot group all people together as one just so you can push your POV on here. Doesn't Benji understand that not all christians are conservative? I assure you that not all conservatives are religious. Furthermore, the slang word "gay" is a liberal mainstream word that liberal society and liberal media outlets use for political correctness. Regardless of all this, Benji's issues are focused on a individual editor's way of editing. That's bad faith on his part. It should be focused on the true issue, which is a content dispute. I don't see any problems with how I edit, nor do I see any issues with how Ave Caesar edits. I do have some serious concerns with an editor who vilifies other editors as, "they" or "their" or "them". That's extremely rude. On a final note, Benji failed to initiate discussion on the talk page. Had he done so, I would of gladly taken part. Instead he filed this report. This alone was bad faith on his part.

talk

) 09:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As soon as you throw "liberal this" and "liberal that" and "political correctness" about, then you are showing your prejudices very clearly, thank you. Never mind what you think should be the correct wording and usage, what does the community think? This is after all a collaborative project. Black Kite 09:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your statement above shows me where your prejudices are. But yes, what does the community think should be the correct words to use?

talk

) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gay" is hardly a "slang liberal word". Conservatives use it as well. So does the mainstream media. I'm more interested in the terms used by reliable sources to describe the subject than in a community referendum, though. MastCell ^Talk 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have zero idea what my politics are. However, it is a standard Wikipedia (and general) fact that editors who rail against what they think is "political correctness" and use "liberal" in a pseudo-pejorative manner are rarely very good at editing articles in a

neutral manner. Black Kite

18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of the word "gay" to refer to the LGBT community, or it's members, is entirely appropriate and is in accordance with the Wikipedia community guideline

) 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, "gay" could still be considered slang, in the same sense that "Coke" could be considered slang for "Coca-Cola". Both terms "Coke" and "gay" are widespread, though, and much more commonly used than their alternatives. Even so, we use "

WP:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex and sexual identities is pretty clear which we should use. But back to the topic at hand, I don't think either user was trying to be disruptive or particularly POV-pushing by using the more clinical term. Many people are unaware that "homosexual" is considered pejorative. -kotra (talk

) 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that if an editor informs you clearly that the word you're using is pejorative - perhaps your first action should not be to revert them. That just maybe if someone brings an issue to them your response should not be immediate spite, deletion or sarcasm. This is not a battleground and we can work with people even if we don't agree with them. That CadenS also chooses to add more POV and heap bad faith accusations towards me is also unhelpful. That they were misrepresenting sources also seems like a bad prospect for the article. I too had thought their hostility towards me had ended when they again lobbed a jab and personal attack me on

-- Banjeboi

10:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CadenS' behavior

• Comment. Another hostile attack this time on my talkpage.
  -- Banjeboi
  10:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Do I have to bring up my past ANI reports and links against CadenS or is he going to stop editing articles relating to sexuality like he promised last time to avoid a block? — Realist² 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Would it be possible to provide a diff or pointer to his promise to avoid these articles?

MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Here. Basically to diffuse the post I made at ANI, that would have likely resulted in Caden being blocked. He instead declared that he quit, thus making a block pointless, came back 5 hours later wanting adoption and promising to avoid sexuality articles. He was back to sexuality articles very quickly. That said, and I must stress this, Caden contributes in a very positive manner to articles unrelated to sexuality. --— Realist² 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe it but my wiki stalker Realist2 is back at it sticking his nose where it don't belong. He was warned by several users in the past to stop harassing me. He agreed and promised me that he would stop. And now he's back at it with more threats. I'm fed up with you harassing me. I'm sick of you stalking me and watching my every move on Wikipedia. Get a life. Stop stalking me Realist. You have been stalking me since May 2008.

talk

) 16:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CadenS I'm not stalking you at all! There is a HUGE post about you at ANI. It's quite hard to avoid you know. You also broke your promise not to edit articles on sexuality. Then I see a post where you tell another editor that they disgust you. Christ CadenS, I'm not out to get you, I tried to help you the other week. I'm strongly advising you as a friend (I consider use on friendly terms) to stop editing these kinds of articles before your blocked. You are doing some wonderful work on other articles on wikipedia, but this other stuff is too much for you I think. I don't want to see you blocked, I really don't. Please calm down, before you get yourself into more trouble, please Caden. You love wikipedia (I hope), and we want you here. But you have your hot buttons for understandable reasons. Please make yourself some coffee or tea, take a chill and come back to what you do best. :-) — Realist² 16:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain this thread about the content dispute and the use of "gay" vs. "homosexual" did not have to come to ANI as members of

WP:LGBT would argue about this, but Caden's posts must be addressed. Caden is an impulsive editor who allows his past experience to color his responses, which are disproportionately vehement in the scheme of natural discussion and disagreement editors have over article content. He has posted before that he has had a traumatic experience with gay men in the past, but his trauma should not define how editors communicate about problems within an article. In short, he's making his problems everyone else's problems. It sucks time away from what needs to be done to an article, and requires further intervention by his mentor kotra (talk · contribs). I can only imagine how draining this must be for kotra to have to calm Caden down this frequently. This diff provided by Benji regarding Caden's umbrage taken to non-gendered pronouns is a prime example. I can't think getting this stressed out is fun for Caden, and I suggest taking a break and doing something else that is much more enjoyable. The bottom line, however, is that other editors should not be forced to avoid his temper, especially when it's this unpredictable. He needs to take some responsibility for his behavior, tone it down, drop out of LGBT articles, and come back when he behave calmly and dispassionately. --Moni3 (talk

) 16:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Moni's assessment here - it's disappointing to see the same user here again for the same thing, as I remember the original AN/I from a few months ago quite well, and the promise made which essentially got him out of that one (noting I don't edit in the area but do watch AN/I fairly consistently and have done so for almost two years). Orderinchaos 17:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing all of this, I'm afraid that I agree that Caden's temper flares when working on sexuality-related articles. That said, I just want to note that he has sometimes been a positive help on these sexuality-related articles, but unfortunately I'm not sure if it's worth all the anger and fighting behind the scenes. So I would be ok with a restriction on articles about sexuality. I agree with Realist, though, that he has usually been very helpful and an asset to the community on other articles, and his behavior had improved greatly until this recent flare-up. So I would support a topic restriction, but in the interests of the project, not a complete block. -kotra (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As his mentor, I'm glad you suggested a possible solution that was also at the back of my mind. I think a sexuality topic ban is not necessary at this stage. Caden has every right to feel the way he does, but if he can't keep his feelings from disrupting the project in future, I think implementing such a ban is the next step, if only on a temporary basis. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SheffieldSteel! Yes, I do have every right to feel the way I do, but many editors have attempted to strip me of my rights. At least that's how it appears to me. In regards to why my temper flared, it had nothing to do with the article content dispute. It was based on Benji's offensive description of me in all posts (as "they", "their" and "them"). I asked him many times as did my adopter, for him to refrain from describing me in gender-neutral languge. He has continued to disrespect my wishes nevertheless. A sexuality topic ban, or even a restriction on articles about sexuality is not necessary. My work on these articles speak for itself. If it weren't for me, both the E. O. Green School article and the Jesse Dirkhising article would not be NPOV. There are few POV issues still remaining on the Dirkhising page. Regardless of that, I fought hard against many POV pushers to save these articles and my good edits reflect that. Although those editors created an extremely stressful environment for me and painted me as the bad guy, I'm proud that I did what was right according to NPOV policy. I'm proud that I have the balls to speak up, the courage to be bold, and the strength to take action by doing what's right.

talk

) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a temporary topic restriction should go ahead, Kotra and even Caden himself seem to think it's probably for the best. We had a similar ANI post a few months ago, Caden said he would stay away from sexuality articles then, yet somehow we are back here. Caden has taken multiple cool of breaks (that last for weeks at a time) in the past yet things soon heat up again. Caden's talents as an editor should be kept to what he does best on other articles, without these other articles as a distraction. We really don't want another overblown ANI episode in the future, something I fear will put Caden off any interest in wikipedia. — Realist² 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Realist, please do not speak for me on my behalf. You have no business to put words into my mouth. I mean no offense to you, but I never agreed to any type of agreement in terms of avoiding any sexuality articles. All I said to you, was that I understood your suggestion, but I did not agree to any terms. Although I believe your intentions are good, I'd appreciate that you refrain from speaking on my behalf. At this point I have not been contacted by any admin, therefore I have no clue what options are available to me.

talk

) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider here, it seems obviously better all round if Caden avoids topics that wind him up, however justified the reasoning, and in the long run it's better that he does that of his own accord than have it forced upon him. There are topics I specifically avoid because I know I'd only get het up, and to reduce the risk of threads such as this, er, um, I don't go there. Caden, whatever your past, its a cliche to say that "Wikipedia is not therapy", and neither (to a lesser extent) is it a soapbox for anger. Two and a half million articles should give you plenty to do. Your edits are generally good, from what I've seen, and you just need to point those talents to where they'll make you feel appreciated in the right kind of way. You have good guys on your side here; time is one healer, but doing something else is another, particularly if you've got people batting on your side. --Rodhullandemu 22:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rod, I can see your point on this but I disagree with you. If I were to avoid these type of topics, they would end up being the horribly biased and POV articles they once were before I fought for them to be NPOV. However justified my feelings are concerning these subjects, the articles do not wind me up. It's some of the editors on those pages that get me going, like for example Benji. But I'm working on keeping my cool even when I'm personally attacked, which has been often. I do agree with you that it's better that I choose on my own accord, whether I shouldn't work on these articles or not, instead of it being forced upon me. I am open to feedback and suggestions though. As for working on other articles, I do work on many unrelated type of articles. I enjoy doing so. But as it stands today, I'm not sure what's going to happen with me or this ANI report. I'm not even sure why Moni went and shifted the spotlight from the original content dispute (of which this report is supposed to be about) to my behavior. I have a lot of questions but no answers. Am I going to be blocked or not? Am I going to be given a topic restriction or not? Why is the content dispute not being discussed anymore? What about the other editor Ave Caesar? This ANI was filed against this editor as well, not just me. Why am I being singled out? Why has the real issue here (the content dispute) been forgotten?

talk

) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, what worries me is that I doubt you are sufficiently disinterested to preserve NPOV, and that is why I think you should avoid those articles, for the very reason that this thread came to be. Up to you, of course. --Rodhullandemu 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There's several categories of articles I never go anywhere near for that exact reason - I know that no matter how good my intentions, my personal opinions on the area are so strong that I know I could not be neutral and hence it is best left to others who are. Orderinchaos 18:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

L::Well, User:Mastcell has suggested a restriction, at this point though what's most important is ensuring that we don't have another ANI thread like this. This is the second and I'm not sure the community will tolerate a third incident like this. We should be looking to help Caden make the most of his abilities without all this other stuff muddying it up. If a restriction is the best way to prevent that, who knows. — Realist² 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Rod, you didn't answer any of my questions. Furthermore, this report is not about just me. It was filed against another editor as well. And Realist, this report is not about me. I already told you this before.

talk

) 18:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. The other user - Ave Caesar - basically only reverted and I personally saw their contributions there as disruptive although generally adding tags is usually helpful. That they reverted without discussing and in doing so restored pejorative language and content not supported by sources was also not great. They seemed to be following your lead but in doing so affirmed they felt those edits were correct, they weren't. However, your actions coupled with your previous talkpage conduct and given the recent issues on

12:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring this page is hardly a great demonstration at this point. [43] Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Options

As CadenS's Adopter, I have been asked to impose whatever restrictions I feel are appropriate. However, due to my status as Adopter, I feel I am too involved to make the decision on my own. Therefore, I would appreciate input and/or a decision from other editors, particularly uninvolved editors and administrators. The options I see are as follows (please suggest any others you feel are appropriate):

1. Do nothing (assumes CadenS is not at fault).
2. Continue to urge CadenS to
   civil
   in disputes with editors.
3. Recruit an additional mentor to help guide CadenS.
4. Suggest a temporary/permanent voluntary topic ban on
   Jesse Dirkhising
   .
5. Impose a temporary/permanent involuntary
   Jesse Dirkhising
   .
6. Suggest a temporary/permanent voluntary topic ban on all sexuality-related articles (including
   Jesse Dirkhising
   ).
7. Impose a temporary/permanent involuntary topic ban on all sexuality-related articles.
8. Temporary/permanent block. (above discussion seems to indicate consensus is against this)

Whatever the restrictions meted out, both CadenS and I would prefer the decision be made sooner rather than later. So please comment! -kotra (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel I'm too close to this as well so would prefer others input here. CadenS has genuinely good feedback and concerns but they need to be dialed down - we can disagree without being disagreeable.

-- Banjeboi

02:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say a voluntary topic ban, but actually Kotra has come up with the idea of an extra mentor. I think two mentors is bound to be better than one and could help. I think an additional mentor is the best way to go 100%. I recently saw some of CadenS comments at an RfA and he's even passing on advise about civility in a brilliant manner to other people. This proves Caden has and will continue to learn from mistakes. With guidance he will be a strong asset. — Realist² 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ave Caesar's behavior

We seem to have been distracted from the other user in this report. Only a few of the issues with Ave Caesar have yet been addressed, so for the purpose of discussion, I'm copying Benji's original report on Ave Caesar below:

Another editor and I were discussing converting over the citation style to make editing the HTML easier for them when

WP:LGBT project tag on Lindsay Lohan with Dev920 who has, as part of their signature "who misses Jeffpw". Stunningly Ave Caesar follows up with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Isaäc's Memorial Page

.

Is there anything that needs to be addressed here? -kotra (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• IMO - Caden needs to stop letting his POV influence his editing, and Ave Caesar needs to stop being a
  WP:DICK - that MfD of the memorial page was particularly dickish. If they can manage both of those things, we can close this, I think - there's no need for prescriptive blocks or topic bans yet. Black Kite
  10:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual is a more formal word than gay, and I expect it would be used more in encyclopedias etc. I've not read all the ins and outs of the discussion, but I would like to disagree with the claim that 'homosexual' is always a slur word- it's more often just a formal word. And I'm a bisexual woman so I'm not being shockingly homophobic by saying that.:) It does sound like Benji was trying to get Corden into trouble by posting here, but no-one could really deny that AC's attempt to delete the memorial page was wrong. Sticky Parkin 17:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's stay on topic here (just to be clear, I'm not singling out Sticky Parkin). This section is only about Ave Caesar, not CadenS. There is another section above to discuss CadenS. -kotra (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sticky Parkin, I wasn't trying to get anyone into trouble - I was working to stop edit warring as outlined in my original post. And has been discussed homosexual is generally pejorative on biographies and should be used with care elsewhere. It's a loaded word persistently used in American culture wars - we don't need to perpetuate it's use needlessly just as avoid doing so with other terms used as such.

-- Banjeboi

21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Conversation moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Battle of Opis subpage because of length.--Tznkai (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive475#Tohd8BohaithuGh1.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_recent_edits for previous discussion about this user.

In the previous discussion surrounding this user 3 different editors had to go and tell him about the discussion and finally warnings had to be given that if he didn't show up to discuss his edits they'd be viewed as disruptive and he would be blocked. Since that time he's accumulated 9 more warnings on his talk page about his editing behaviour (a wide variety of things, misuse of vandal templates, misuse of automatic tools like twinkle, and failure to respond again at times) and was recently blocked for his behaviour. All in just 10 days. He seems completely unwilling to take any advice, and in the most

) 02:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about bringing him up here again. His userpage is a string of 'final warnings', he's back at it after his block and unrepentant. I suggest removing all semi-automated tools such as twinkle from him, you never know he might be ok underneath what he's doing with them. Then if he still acts bizarrely disruptively, we'll have to think again. But he's not the most collaborative of users. Sticky Parkin 03:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Even without the tools he has a serious issue with communication which is a big part of the problem and frustration for other editors.--

Crossmr (talk

) 05:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours and will keep an eye out. I still think he's well-intentioned but we can't tolerate the constant disruption. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely something not clicking with this editor. Today, while I was on RC patrol, I noted an IP that he had given SEVEN final warnings to in quick succession. I'd definitely support complete removal of all semi-automated tools. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This editor seems to be trying to do approximately the right thing. It's the "approximately" that's the problem. Maybe with some coaching... --John Nagle (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only are this editor's bad edits requiring so much effort to check and clean up that they swamp any benefit from his good edits, he is also - I would surmise - chasing off potentially good editors. Final warnings given as first warnings for simple newbie errors are just not acceptable (and the irony is not lost on me). I accept this editor means well but Wikipedia is not for everyone, and I think it is time to recognise that the project would be better off without him.

talk

) 07:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

He was given plenty of chances before I issued him a final warning. Several editors reached out to him and he ignored them until he was given a final warning and told he'd be blocked if he didn't discuss. I agree that an editor that continues on this path and basically has to be forced in to discussion does not benefit this project.--

Crossmr (talk

) 09:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It would help people relate to him if he had a readable username too. I keep thinking it's text speak and trying to decipher it, but I think it's just a random jumble of numbers and letters, which if it were longer would definitely breach the username policy. Sticky Parkin 12:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Crossmr - I was referring to the final warnings Tohd8BohaithuGh1 was issuing: minor transgressions by newbie editors were getting a really unwarranted response.

talk

) 19:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you mentioned irony, I thought you were referring to the fact that the first warning I'd issued him was a final warning.--

Crossmr (talk

) 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I thought it ironic that he is so intolerant of newbie errors when he is making so many errors himself.

talk

) 06:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that he as asked Sticky Parkin to adopt him. This is a more postive sign.

talk

) 16:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

He also made two good wikignome edits 'by hand' as far as I can tell rather than using any tools, and I agreed to adopt him.:) Sticky Parkin 17:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We thought we had lots of good signs last time too and look where we are. Great if he shapes up though.--

Crossmr (talk

) 22:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Gwp-like account

I don't know where is the right place for this nowadays. User:DrinkThineCookies was found (via checkuser) vandalizing grawp-like on kab.wikipedia. I see it's an active account here, so I thought I would drop a note (the account is globally locked now anyway). -- m:drini 15:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not Grawp, it's the Zodiac vandal I think. D.M.N. (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It was indef blocked before this comment, and indeed used template vandalism instead of requesting unblock - so they have got hit by the new fangled edit permission denial thingy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

) 19:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to have uploaded any images in the past week. It would be somewhat punitive to block for that. Let me know if he uploads another, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Conversation moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Battle of Opis subpage because of length.--Tznkai (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 –

RBI - KnightLago (talk

) 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there is a deeper issue here. Thatcher 18:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see "The Wikipedia Community would like to wish Avril Lavigne a happy birthday!" at the top of the article on South Africa and related articles. It appears above the article title! I have no idea how this is done, because I can't find the text in the article. Over to someone more aufait than me ... AWhiteC (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed here, vandal blocked, but I'm a little unclear if we protect templates that have previously been targeted or not. --

barneca (talk

) 18:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lonely lost soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Birthdaygirl84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wubwubus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vancouver cornetto1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These vandal accounts and the template vandalism they caused were enabled because

, even though these are shared IPs, almost all the edits are vandalism from the Avril vandal. These accounts were created recently on Tor, then used to vandalize from school. Therefore a softblock is worthless. The template further gives several helpful instructions to good editors who might be affected. I was hoping that a hard block would annoy enough of Synetrix' clients that they would take some sort of action.

I am disappointed that Blueboy96 lifted this block without informing or consulting me. Expect the Avril template vandal to come back on a daily basis. Thatcher 18:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put this block back in place; checkuser blocks are obviously not to be undone. east718 // talk // email // 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had thought there was a provision in the blocking policy reflecting that "checkuser blocks," designated as such, should not be undone by another (non-checkuser) administrator without checking with the checkuser. However, I'm not finding that provision in a skim of

WP:BLOCK, so perhaps I am misremembering (although it seems a sensible enough suggestion in any event). Newyorkbrad (talk

) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just one of those things that's accepted practice but the recording of which as such has been neglected. I suppose this is as close as you'll get to instructions of this sort. east718 // talk // email // 19:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the type of block, it would have been courteous for Blueboy to ask Thatcher first, or at least inform him of unblocking, whether it was a checkuser block, or a plain admin one. --

how do you turn this on

19:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit, I thought it was bad form to hardblock such a large range from editing due to the large potential for collateral damage, unless there was a lot of spam involved. If I had known that the range was being used exclusively by one editor, I'd have left the block in place. I'll do better on this in the future ...

19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be no future. You shouldn't be unblocking anyone unless you know exactly what is going on. It is extremely bad form to reverse another administrator's block, especially a checkuser, without consulting them first. Have you unblocked anything else we should know about? KnightLago (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your tone is inappropriate KnightLago. He realised his mistake & apologized for it. If you want to check his blocking/unblocking history the logs are there to browse at your leisure. ---

WRE

) 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You infer too much. KnightLago (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with KnightLago here. Blueboy may have realised his? immediate mistake, but it's not clear if he realised the wider mistake which is that admins should not go around undoing the actions of other admins, without being sure that they are doing the right thing. Particular with a checkuser, admins need to be damned sure the blocked was inappropriate and there wasn;t a wider issue. As it was, a quick look through Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Avril Vandal or otherwise digging deeper into the history of the Avril vandal probably would have told Blueboy there is a wider issue. Yes the earlier discussion didn't really mention any of this, but Blueboy should have, given the circumstances, either done a bit of searching or asked what was going on. Note that this doesn't mean checkusers have free reign to do whatever they want simply that admins (or anyone else for that matter) should request an explanation if they have doubts but may not be aware of all the circumstances. Nor does it mean that Blueboy, or anyone, should be hang, drawn and quartered; simply that it is important that the proper lessons are learnt here. Also, people have a right to feel aggrieved if someone else makes a mistake that costs other people time and effort, the fact that a person may have apologised and accepted their mistake may mean there is no call for further action, but it doesn't remove the right for others to be aggrieved by the mistakes. Intrisincly, part of accepting you made a mistake is accepting that others may be annoyed at you for a while for that mistake (and I see no evidence BlueBoy doesn't accept this, it's simply J.smith who appears to think apologising means everyone should be happy and we should at once forget about the issue) Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not the strawman you have constructed, Nil Einne. My comment was in reference to KightLago's hostile and incivil tone. ---

WRE

) 01:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Similar issue on

15:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wubwubus

Wubwubus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding "AL birthday" message to widely-used templates; previously done under Khrono1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account, now blocked. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked, see thread immediately above. --

barneca (talk

) 19:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Converted into a subsection of above thread.--Tznkai (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed and blocked. Also blocked one open proxy - Alison ^❤ 19:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

More

More vandaliasm from:

• Laven84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jennifercole21-01-94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Samanthamckay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block and semiprotect? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

15:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Although if they are sleeper accounts, and he has more of them, then semi prot won't work. Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

15:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's all cleared up. Checkusers will find more in my blocking log. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Proxies and sleepers blocked. Thatcher 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A different strategy

After looking carefully at the checkuser logs, it appears that the Avril vandal only has access to about 34 addresses within the range, not the whole range. So I have individually blocked the affected addresses and will unblock the range. Note these 34 addresses are still massively shared by a number of London-area schools. There is an awful lot of vandalism, and not just the Avril vandal. It should be ok to create accounts and grant block exemptions for users who have legit school or residential ISP email addresses. When in doubt, ask. Thatcher 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They're just school-IPs. School ips are always way more trouble than they're worth. You lose nothing by blocking them. HalfShadow 16:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive475#Tohd8BohaithuGh1.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_recent_edits for previous discussion about this user.

In the previous discussion surrounding this user 3 different editors had to go and tell him about the discussion and finally warnings had to be given that if he didn't show up to discuss his edits they'd be viewed as disruptive and he would be blocked. Since that time he's accumulated 9 more warnings on his talk page about his editing behaviour (a wide variety of things, misuse of vandal templates, misuse of automatic tools like twinkle, and failure to respond again at times) and was recently blocked for his behaviour. All in just 10 days. He seems completely unwilling to take any advice, and in the most

) 02:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about bringing him up here again. His userpage is a string of 'final warnings', he's back at it after his block and unrepentant. I suggest removing all semi-automated tools such as twinkle from him, you never know he might be ok underneath what he's doing with them. Then if he still acts bizarrely disruptively, we'll have to think again. But he's not the most collaborative of users. Sticky Parkin 03:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Even without the tools he has a serious issue with communication which is a big part of the problem and frustration for other editors.--

Crossmr (talk

) 05:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours and will keep an eye out. I still think he's well-intentioned but we can't tolerate the constant disruption. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely something not clicking with this editor. Today, while I was on RC patrol, I noted an IP that he had given SEVEN final warnings to in quick succession. I'd definitely support complete removal of all semi-automated tools. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This editor seems to be trying to do approximately the right thing. It's the "approximately" that's the problem. Maybe with some coaching... --John Nagle (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only are this editor's bad edits requiring so much effort to check and clean up that they swamp any benefit from his good edits, he is also - I would surmise - chasing off potentially good editors. Final warnings given as first warnings for simple newbie errors are just not acceptable (and the irony is not lost on me). I accept this editor means well but Wikipedia is not for everyone, and I think it is time to recognise that the project would be better off without him.

talk

) 07:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

He was given plenty of chances before I issued him a final warning. Several editors reached out to him and he ignored them until he was given a final warning and told he'd be blocked if he didn't discuss. I agree that an editor that continues on this path and basically has to be forced in to discussion does not benefit this project.--

Crossmr (talk

) 09:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It would help people relate to him if he had a readable username too. I keep thinking it's text speak and trying to decipher it, but I think it's just a random jumble of numbers and letters, which if it were longer would definitely breach the username policy. Sticky Parkin 12:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Crossmr - I was referring to the final warnings Tohd8BohaithuGh1 was issuing: minor transgressions by newbie editors were getting a really unwarranted response.

talk

) 19:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you mentioned irony, I thought you were referring to the fact that the first warning I'd issued him was a final warning.--

Crossmr (talk

) 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I thought it ironic that he is so intolerant of newbie errors when he is making so many errors himself.

talk

) 06:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that he as asked Sticky Parkin to adopt him. This is a more postive sign.

talk

) 16:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

He also made two good wikignome edits 'by hand' as far as I can tell rather than using any tools, and I agreed to adopt him.:) Sticky Parkin 17:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We thought we had lots of good signs last time too and look where we are. Great if he shapes up though.--

Crossmr (talk

) 22:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This user has an extremely long history of disruption, checkuser has confirmed sock accounts of his on three different occasions, and a couple others have been blocked under

) 08:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. He has been using the same IP for months, would it be possible to block account creation for a month or so maybe? Im asking because he usually returns the next day or so after his latest sock is blocked. In the past the articles had to be protected, and he is the only one disrupting the said articles.

Landon1980 (talk

) 09:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What IP would that be, and how do you know it is his?  Sandstein  09:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A few months ago he used his IP to edit and it was blocked as a sock of his. Just the other day when he was making a series of edits on

Landon1980 (talk

) 09:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To give you an idea of how likely it is he will return look at this]

Landon1980 (talk

) 09:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, 66.195.30.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked for 3 months. Seems to be only used by him.  Sandstein  10:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully that will take care of it. Cheers,

Landon1980 (talk

) 10:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably impossible to verify, but this look a lot to me like User:Michael. Corvus cornix_talk 19:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. USEDfan is a fanboy of The Used, and he also has a habit of editing Aqua Teen Hunger Force articles, whereas User:Michael is all over the place. Completely different editing patterns. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael/Mike Garcia loved to edit band articles. Corvus cornix_talk 00:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not like that behaviour is out of the ordinary here at Wikipedia. USEDfan sticks to The Used. Like I said, completely different editing patterns. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where is the right place for this nowadays. User:DrinkThineCookies was found (via checkuser) vandalizing grawp-like on kab.wikipedia. I see it's an active account here, so I thought I would drop a note (the account is globally locked now anyway). -- m:drini 15:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not Grawp, it's the Zodiac vandal I think. D.M.N. (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It was indef blocked before this comment, and indeed used template vandalism instead of requesting unblock - so they have got hit by the new fangled edit permission denial thingy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

) 19:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to have uploaded any images in the past week. It would be somewhat punitive to block for that. Let me know if he uploads another, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at their contributions. They are more than likely to do vandalize

) 23:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow the

WP:AIV if they go past. AIV is usually decently fast and more effective than trying to report in this wall of text. We don't do preventative blocks and with IP addresses, there's a chance the person could change. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 23:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Spitfire19 (talk · contribs) Earlier I came across yet another maxis/sims related stub that didn't have the remotest hint of qualifying for an article. For those not familiar with the The Sims series, user (especially brand new users) really enjoy making stubs about every single aspect of this game and all the various words that get created in the forums or the game itself. These inevitably end up redirected/deleted. Stumbling across yet another, I was bold and redirected it as the only source was a primary source of a single usage of the word in a commercial. [44]. I explained my reasoning on the talk page of the redirect

) 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I put it up for speedy as it serves no other purpose than to insult the person it's applied to. JuJube (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not created for use as a personal attack. It's on my User Page. I was unaware that it would be taken in such a way as this.Spitfire (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. In the future I'd refrain from putting anything sarcastic on anyone's page. Sarcasm doesn't translate very well over the internet.--

Crossmr (talk

) 03:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I declined the speedy. If it is only used on the user's page, it should not be a problem. Might be better userfied or could be deleted via MFD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's only on the userpage, I consider it quite funny/self-deprecating and some other users might possibly like it for themselves (if they're brave enough) :) Sticky Parkin 03:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

*Goes to add it to her userpage* L'Aquatique[talk] 03:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If a user puts it on their OWN page maybe, but to go out and apply it to another users page can and likely will be seen as an insult. It implies the user is trying to throw around some authority reserved for admins and is acting in a way they shouldn't. If people want to make that statement about themselves thats fine, but the issue here wasn't exactly the template, but the message the template had and the fact that it was stuck on my user page as a result of a content disagreement.--

Crossmr (talk

) 03:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

He added it to your userpage? That wasn't shown in the diff you provided. Shana tova!-- L'Aquatique[talk] 05:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks to have been added here [49], which I wouldn't have taken too kindly to, either. Dayewalker (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dayewalker. I had not looked through all the diffs properly it seems. However, Spitfire has apologized so I think we can call this one resolved for now, although further passive agressiveness should be reported. I'm hoping that we have all learned our lesson about editing other people's userpage! Shana tova!-- L'Aquatique[talk] 05:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Beginning with earlier today (9/28), multiple users have removed part of all of the "Fires" section of the KOOP (FM) page. KOOP-FM is a radio station in Austin, Texas that was the site of an arson in January of 2008 by a former employee (according to referenced sources).

Different accounts were made and within moments (sometimes just a minute after creation) would remove the same section. Reverts were made and new accounts were created remove the same information. As of this writing, vandalism to the page continues.

The following accounts are being used in the vandalism:

• Joeyv1000 (talk · contribs)
• AndrewDick69 (talk · contribs)
• DJMD01 (talk · contribs)
• YellowRoseHooker (talk · contribs)
• Whistler1889 (talk · contribs)
• Kutguru (talk · contribs)

Multiple warnings have been issued for all accounts by myself and other users. I have requested full protection for the page and have also requested a checkuser to confirm the sockpuppetry angle.

Since those "departments" (checkuser and page protection) are kinda slow, I bring it to your attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have protected against new and unregistered users, pending review here by other admins. Please let me know if i have protected the wrong version. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, another suicide threat. Here's the diff: [50], the IP resolves to St. John's, Newfoundland. If someone could contact their authorities, that would be great. Shana tova!-- L'Aquatique[talk] 06:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think someone handled that already, there's a post further up the page about it, same IP. (I thought it sounded familiar.) AlexiusHoratius 06:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit skirmish over the last few days here: [51]. I attempted to offer some thoughts on the article talk page, but I think the two sides will just have at it until an administrator has a look. Thanks, JNW (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week, since the two edit warriors are just IPs. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I would greatly appreciate having someone else read the content of both contested versions and offer their thoughts re: objectivity. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think semiprotect is a good idea in this case. The article is in dire need of cleanup, it started as a near copy/paste of the link at the bottom of the page, and reads like a vanity page. One editor (User:69.177.150.62) seems to have been trying to fix the article [52] indicating so in the edit summary ("Tried to fix POV/Make it no longer a complete vanity page as it was"), and everything was reverted over and over without explanation from two IPs :

• New York Times no less [55]). Guess who is the Director of Strategy @ Pepsi ? The answer is in the article here: Dan Debicella
  .
• User:76.23.169.18. Been blocked after warnings for removing comments from the talk page [56] (6x). Needless to say, a traceroute on the IP shows the end node is in Shelton. Guess who's from Shelton ? The answer is in the article here : Dan Debicella

User:69.177.150.62 is a bit annoyed (and a little confused) [57], and quite frankly, I would be too, he is editing in good faith, warring with someone who should not be editing this article and probably not edit *any* article as he is obviously not interested in improving Wikipedia.

Anyway, I'll revert to a non vanity version. Equendil Talk 07:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Wikified and added refs as well. Equendil Talk 08:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh and while I am at it, I went further down the rabbit hole and here are my findings :

• Article was created by User:Shelton2. Needless to say, that account only "contributed" to a very narrow set of articles.
• Various editors tried at one point or another to alter the article. This was invariably reverted by IPs, even the slightest edits:
• User:64.252.73.154, User:64.252.65.220, User:64.252.6.115, User:64.252.99.185,User:64.252.107.152
• User:64.148.1.113. There was a bit of a mess on 10 December 2007, resulting in that last IP being blocked as well as User:Ratsofftoya for 3RR violation, a case reminiscent of this one. A trigger happy vandal fighter also accidently reverted to what was pretty much the original version of the article (see also comment by Ratsofftoya on the revert and answer [58][59].
• User:64.252.5.117 after a few months where the article was not modified. Reverted cleanup tags.
• User:64.252.5.2, User:64.252.133.54, User:64.252.113.233.
• The obviously similar IPs listed above all trace to New Haven County, Connecticut (if you wonder that's not far from Shelton).
• Note that some of the IPs/accounts who edited the article to attempt a more neutral / shorter rewrite or altering a sentence were
  spa/spi's, though Dan Debicella
  being a public figure, and given the advert like quality of the article, that's not really indicative of anything.
• So basically, there isn't so much of a revert war here as "someone" who has prevented virtually every change to the article since its creation, 15 months ago, see the diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Debicella&diff=241169162&oldid=139568743. Equendil Talk 09:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Equendil, for your research into this, which is greatly appreciated. The promotional content was not acceptable, but I was ambivalent about substituting it with content, even if well-sourced, that also has the potential to be seen as partisan. That's why I stated on the article's talk page that news sources would be preferable to assessments by action groups (even though they are organizations with which I may be sympathetic). The concern is that such information can be cherry-picked to suit any editor's agenda, i.e. original research. JNW (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the concern, not much of a news source out there though, we have rather low standards for inclusion of local politicians I'm afraid and it's just begging for BLP & COI issues that don't even get noticed for months or years. Equendil Talk 08:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one wonders whether the inclusion of local politicians is necessary, and if so, whether content needs to be more than a paragraph. From what I've seen, ditto for high schools. Thanks again. JNW (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Dyrdek&diff=241383858&oldid=241383308 this edit I just reverted is disturbing. I think that this needs attention before this keeps happening. SteelersFan94 20:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

iridescent

 20:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think that is 'disturbing', you're not going to last long here. HalfShadow 20:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, come on, when you saw such stuff for the first time on WP, didn't it shock you just a little bit? It did me, anyway. But some 20,000 odd diffs of this type since and I don't think I'd notice now if someone spraypainted such things on my door. ➨ ❝

ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed

20:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. First thing I thought when I saw '...the encyclopedia anyone can edit' was 'I bet the place is just crawling with stupid...' HalfShadow 20:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I saw the encyclopedia that anyone can edit rather than the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and thought, "ooh, an encyclopedia, that'll be full of like-minded people who want to increase the sum of knowledge in the world then. This should be good". I learnt quickly. ➨ ❝

ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed

20:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If Britannica's editor is to be believed, it's more like "the toilet wall that anyone can scrawl on." Sometimes I think he has a point... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

iridescent

 20:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the complete works of Jacquelyn Suzanne. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't say such hateful things about the monkeys, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The monkeys always act in good faith. Their output, whatever it turns out to be, comes naturally. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is Jimbo's happening, and it freaks me out... (oops, wrong...) — CharlotteWebb 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The first time I saw in a search engine Wikipedia, I thought it to be another one of those web page hosting things like Myspace with an educational twist where a bunch of professional share their knowledge, the first time I considered editing it, I decided not to because I didn't want to screw something up, and when I actually started seriously editing, I thought "this place must be full of scammers, phishers, and 419 scammers; I think I'll try an hunt 'em down and get 'em shut off"

(Messages)

21:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to take into consideration the fact that the user making this "report" is only 13 or 14, and it may offend them more. However, ditto Iridescent and Halfshadow. Daniel (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a well sourced paragraph about some gays being arrested in Iran added to our article about Iran's third largest city of over 1 million people,

) 20:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, please do not include navigation templates here, it does not make any sense. Second, what exactly are you asking? Whether it is okay to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies to help discussing the issue or whether the removals were correct? SoWhy 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The editor has trimmed the section down now, and - as he says - it's better sourced than the entire rest of the article. The question is whether it belongs in that article (we do have similar sections on notable incidents in other city articles) or in an article such as LGBT rights in Iran. This is a content issue, and I don't see that any administrator intervention is needed here. Black Kite 21:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems this part is against the Wikipedia policy about "Undue Weight", it is well sources but mostly from non neutral sources and does not have the conditions of notability.(77.5.67.93 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

I'd say it belongs at Wikinews, with a link to the Wikinews category for stories about

Esfahān. Guy (Help!

) 22:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They chop off the hands of thieves. I wonder what they chop off in these cases? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I want to know, BB. :-] — Becksguy (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Serious answer: in Iran, being gay is punished by death. Hanging, in the cases I've seen. I'm open to discussion on whether that's an important part of the article, but I hope you'll forgive me if I don't think it's very funny. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not funny, but it's not unique to this city either. A Wikinews link would be good. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually when I looked into this about 1 month ago, HRW states that the last time they were aware of someone had been sentenced to death solely for performing consensual homosexual acts was in 2005 and it was not clear if the sentence had been carried out. Most reports of people being executed for being gay are actually of people who commited rape (and often had commited other crimes). HRW stated they had found no evidence that crimes involving consensual homosexual acts were upgrade to rape. I.E. While it may not be all peachy and rosy fo LGB people in Iran, don't believe everything you hear Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a content issue and discussion should continue on the article talk page. If there are serious issues that prevent consensus from being formed, then apply the dispute resolution processes. This is not an ANI issue, unless behavior gets out of hand. — Becksguy (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is content issue, but the tactics employed by some of the editors are appalling. The content in question was added by

WP:UNDUE) and that were mentioned by Koohkan (albeit not by using the policy name, but we can not expect from new editor that they are familiar with all acronyms and all policies - but he specifically said that he does not think that news reports are appropriate for this article). To me, given that David Shankbone

is an experienced user, this all looks like deception, trying to win an argument by intimidating a new user with policies that have not much to say about the situation here, and by ignoring the policies that are relevant.´

Furthermore, David Shankbone then posted a notice on the LGBT Wikiproject, but surprise, surprise not on the Wikiproject Iran. The discussion on this Wikiproject then showed that they were not assuming good faith, but only homophobia, and that the "heterosexual matrix wants to silence us". Well, that is how the discussion on the talk page - not knowing at this point about all the drama going on I posted a reply on the talk page to some of the arguments of the debate. That is I basically rephrased what Koohkan already said, citing the proper Wiki policies to each of his points. Not that there was much of a debate afterwards, because in the words of one other editor involved, he simply disagress, as there are sources for this incident (no one disagreed with that...), the article is in a bad shape anyway, and we are just targeting information that is uncomfortable (homophobia on our side apparently) (see [64]). Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

) 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

'Idiot' is not an acceptable term to use when involved in a dispute, even with someone who is manifestly in the wrong. I see that you undid the user's edit and warned him on his talk page already; is there a further administrative action you require? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the complaining editor is a highly POV Chinese nationalist editor. Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

00:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No idea who is right here, but both edtiors seem to be involved in a edit war, with Btzkillerv using edit summaries such as "this can be shown as evidence of this idiot's vandalism" or " this biased editing idiot is really getting on my nerves". No indication that the two editors tried to discuss the content, apart from a comment by Btzkillerv on the talk page that Wehrmachtvnn is biased and an idiot (once again). Btzkillerv also abused Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism by reporting Wehrmachtvnn repeatedly - although Wehrmachtvnn edits were not obvious vandalism (if they were vandalism at all). Novidmarana (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollosmokes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested (from me) an unblock on en.Wikipedia. This user was a user in good standing until a few months ago, when a series of unfortunate decisions left him permablocked on this project. Rollosmokes has expressed to me, in e-mail, remorse for some bad behavior and would like to move beyond the old arguments. Any objections to an unblock? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(Non-Admin Opinion): I wouldn't have any problem with him returning as long didn't start that goofy "CW" not "The CW" edit war he had going. I figure there would be some rules laid out (like there were when I returned) and I would hope that would be high on the list. - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• His talk page is not protected, I suggest you encourage him to make some statement there showing what he will do to avoid future problems of this nature, and then invite review based on that statement. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Is a public abasement necessary? I would be fine with an unblocking - indefinite does not mean permanent, after all - as long as Rollosmokes is made aware that resuming the kind of behaviour that got him blocked would see him reblocked post haste, and probably for good. fish&karate 10:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• No need for ritual abasement, just a statement of how he intends to ensure this does not happen again. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• If he's isn't going to do it again, the statement is pointless. If he is, then the statement would be an untruth. Either way, it's unnecessary; he needs to be judged on his actions following an unblock. If Rollosmokes resumes productive editing, that's all the statement he needs to make. fish&karate 12:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sort of a halfway house to Guy's suggestion; if Rollosmokes acknowledges on his talkpage that resuming the previous conflict, or matters relating to similar subjects or the other parties, will result in a ban being imposed with no (or little) chance of further review then I would cautiously support an unblock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • He needs to specifically acknowledge that he will not start that "The CW" nonsense again. That's not "public abasement", it's a declaration of good faith. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed, he was blocked for a couple days before he got indef'd and the minute he gets unblocked he went back to his old ways. As someone that's a member of the
      What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box
      13:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, that's what I mean: an indication of how he'll make sure it doesn't start again, as in "I will remove the page from my watchlist and not go near the subject" or some such. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This person, after coming off a block for incivility has altered my user page without permission, made snarky comments to me on my talk page, and then proceeded to drum up sentiment against me behind my back. (to

) 05:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you possibly posts some diffs? Bstone (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bilodeauzx, skip the diffs and do something productive. The alternative is leaving the project.--chaser - t 06:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's true that he edited your user page, but only to correct a factual error. I can tell from his recent diffs that he doesn't like you very much, but from your recent diffs, it seems that you don't like him very much, either. Maybe you could both try leaving each other alone. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The article

Treatment of depression

anyway. This seems to defeat the purpose of the debate. Can this be right?

Sardaka (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The results of an AfD don't lock an article in the state it was in at the end of the discussion; the article can continue to evolve afterwards. You might consider starting a talk page discussion about breaking the section "Alternative treatment methods" into its own article and see if you get consensus. ➨ ❝

ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now

10:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollbacked possible sock

Resolved

I rollbacked several edits from

) 15:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the request. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone delete this apparently non-existent AfD?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolab

Thank you!

17:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done. That was a bit of an oddity. Black Kite 17:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I think because of the notability tag was added it was given the {{
    -- Banjeboi
    17:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, chaps. I'd like some advice on what do with banned user Jacob Peters (talk · contribs). Jakey's a pro-Soviet POV-pusher who got banned way back in the day for monomaniacal nuttery and has since been socking merrily ever since (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters). He just made a reappearance on Vladimir Lenin - up to his old tricks.

For a while now, Jakey seems to have become very reliant on the IPs of the California State University network: specifically, those belonging to Glendale Community College (California), where he is apparently an undergraduate (heaven help us). This has caused me to apply some very serious blocks, effectively shutting out the whole college. The IPs in question are 204.102.211.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), coming to the end of a year-long account-creation-blocked logged-in editing-prohibited block, 207.151.38.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) approaching the end of an identical block, and 204.102.210.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), currently out of play for a month. A shame, because even from the IPs we were getting some good non-Jacob contributions (along with the inevitable vandalism). Is it worth someone phoning up the college and seeing if they're willing to deal with this persistent abuse of their network? Or would they view it as none of their business? I don't have a real name to give them, but they could easily figure it out from the editing times, I'm sure. Moreschi (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I went to Cal State, and those librarians ain't exactly super-sleuths. Plus, you don't even need to use your student ID to use most of the computers, so I really doubt they would do anything about it. I can't really picture them poring over security tapes. I don't have much of an opinion about the blocks—if I had my way, no IPs would edit—but that's my two cents about the phone call, at least. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

They might be able to do something, might not. No harm in calling. It really depends on the attitude at that college. Maybe they'll do something when enough students whine that the whole campus is blocked from Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"if I had my way, no IPs would edit" - Hear, hear! Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot if IP edits on my watch list every day, and I'm always pleasantly surprised when one of them turns out not to be either blatant vandalism or English-as-a-third-language content. The attitude of the average IP address is "IP on U". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree strongly on IPs in general. (Though this one certainly deserves it.) Sure, some IPs vandalize, but often as not they're reverted by other IPs. I see far more problems from registered users - hoaxes, attack pages, blatant POV pushing, edit warring, etc. Just take a look at this incident page - almost every problem on it is a registered user, not an IP. Edward321 (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's because IP's come and go, and it's easier to deal with (and block) registered users. The majority of IP address updates I see on my watch list every day are junk, one way or another. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

BB: I don't know if I'd subscribe to "majority", but I notice that I cringe a bit when I see an IP edit on my watchlist and, like you, I am pleased at those that turn out to be constructive. Maybe I'll start putting a note on those IPs, thanking them for their contribution and suggesting that they register - it would be a welcome respite from posting warnings. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to admit though, 'majority' or not, it is always nice to see a random IP behaving itself. HalfShadow 22:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a substitutable template that urges good-edit IPs to register Template:Register Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember, one of those anon IPs is Ward Cunningham. Why does he edit Wikipedia without using an account? In his own words: "Because I can." -- llywrch (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, if he couldn't, he'd use his account. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your response, & perhaps because of that lack of understanding it comes across to me as needlessly arrogant. My point of mentioning Ward Cunningham is to point out that there are many useful & clued contributors who prefer to contribute anonymously -- & don't want to create an account for their own reasons. Your response implies not only that you don't care what their reasons might be, but you don't even care to consider that they might be good ones. Requiring one to create an account, even to fix a single typo, discourages, although in a small way, people from joining Wikipedia in good faith. (So far, there appears to be no good & consistent way to discourage the people who want to edit Wikipedia in bad faith.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user 209.175.16.30 (talk · contribs) is a school-district IP which has perennial blocks and is eligible for 1-year blocking. Almost all recent edits have been silliness or vandalism Request soft-block of at least a few weeks to let the students get over their silliness. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive; schoolblock applied. Spellcast (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a lot more than I was asking for. Consider resetting the expiration for sometime next summer at the latest. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I just got an "I kill you" barnstar for my work at FAC. Not sure where I'm supposed to take this, anyone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the right place, Sandy. I have asked

talk · contribs) to come here and explain himself; other action may be appropriate as well. Risker (talk

) 21:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is possibly just a weird motivational barnstar, I'll check if Sandy has come across this user before and/or is working on the article he mentions. If not, then it is a strange thing to do. SGGH ^speak! 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's because I just archived the FAC for

Real Madrid C.F.; if Hadrianos prefers to explain in Spanish, that works for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 21:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I noticed, was checking for any previous interaction but can't locate any, no abusive behaviour on the article, your talk page (aside from barnstar) or the FAC. See what he says. SGGH ^speak! 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on his pointy FAR for the Chelsea F.C. article, it seems likely he's taking his struggles at FAC personally and just lashing out. Resolute 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is something going on in the football (soccer) world leading to all of this? Or is this just football? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised the barnstar image

22:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I will perhaps agree if it's followed by a profound apology when the contributor realizes that it's not funny. Otherwise (and possibly even if), I tend to think it's an issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it appears to have originally come from the Italian wikipedia when someone botched an edit on a highly used template. I'm back and forth over whether a request for rename on the image or outright deletion. It was meant to be taken lightly, like saying

I crush your head, but since sarcasm translates so well, and an image of crosshairs with the words I kill you couldn't possibly be taken out of context as a threat, it may need to be deleted. -Optigan13 (talk

) 22:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Also the turning around and nominating Chelsea for FAR after using that as the model for Real Madrid seems a bit pointy. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To me, the barnstar itself is less the issue here than the use of it; such jokes are only really acceptable if shared between people who have some kind of understanding or a relationship that allows them to expect it will be well received. In this case, it seems flatly out of line. I agree with you completely about the issue of sarcasm. :) As

User:How do you turn this on notes, though, as the barnstar is on Commons, it's fate is not an in-house situation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

23:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The image is now deleted, per notification [65]. Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  10:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

) 16:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Could it not be taken as instead of a threat to the editor, a commentary on the FAC removal? As in, I award this barnstar for your efforts in killing the article as a FA candidate. Not everything should be taken at face value when different cultures and viewpoints are in play. Having said this, I do not agree that SandyGeorgia deserved this "award" because of their efforts with FAC, but it is unreasonable for us to assume it was meant as a personal threat, when it can be seen as having two meanings, the lessor one being far less dramatic in substance.--JavierMC 17:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is my point. Why are we speculating on what Hadrianos1990 meant? We should hear some input from him. However, if we don't, I do not believe we should leave this open to interpretation. And the longer we go without an explanation, the more inclined I am to take this fully as a threat. --Moni3 (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a joke guys, not a threat. It is based off of Achmed the Dead Terrorist's (A puppet, forget the comics name) saying which is "I kill you!". However the appropriateness of using it as a barnstar is questionable. I could see it if it were for comedy...but not for FAC. Rgoodermote  00:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Kukini blocked this stellar individual less than four days ago for the same sort of edits (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) his continued to make to

Looks like a school IP, so possibly not the same person. --

how do you turn this on

15:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be true, but the edits are on the same articles, noted above. Maybe blocking the IP for a bit would serve as a wake-up call to the network folkage at the school. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Or not, but at least it'll stop the vandalism for a while, and maybe the vandal will get bored. Two weeks sounds about right to me, given the history. If it resumes after that, escalate to a month or two and mark it as a {{

schoolblock}}. E-mailing the staff can also help, if you can figure out which school it is. —Ilmari Karonen (talk

) 15:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP's been blocked for two weeks by J.delanoy. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd never heard of BOCES before I started editing Wikipedia. Now I know it only means bad news. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Lifebaka (and Delanoy). As for the other, how so? Are other

BOCES centers of vandal edits, too? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

15:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Like you wouldn't believe. It helps to tag the talk page with {{

sharedIPEDU}} when the IP belongs to schools. -- zzuuzz ^(talk)

15:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

From the amount of crap that comes from them, you'd think most students were retarded or suffering from some sort of psychosis. HalfShadow 19:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Best title ever. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Caulde 19:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

School ips have never been anything but trouble. For every good edit, there's a minimum of 20 bad ones. HalfShadow 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a BOCES-specific block template or something. (j/k)

) 21:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• This will all be fixed on October 1 1993. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked Raul about tomorrows featured article yesterday because there wasn't one up yet, but I've had no response. Given that we've only got a couple of hours left, I decided to add one in myself based on this request. I've protected the page, but I'm not sure what else needs to be done. A review of the situation would be appreciated, but it would have been really bad form to have no article on the main page at 0:00 UTC. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oopsie, this is now my third message, sorry for the repeats. Raul has never missed a date; is there a problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've only got 2 hours left. He's free to overide it if he wants to but I don't think it's a good idea leaving these things so late. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you did what you did correctly, but Raul never misses, so it probably wasn't necessary ... I won't do the other steps that I usually do until we hear from Raul, which will surely be momentarily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we had discussed this on IRC and our (mine, MBisanz, and a few others I can't recall right now) decision was to give Raul until 23:00 UTC before we acted, but looks like Ryan jumped the gun a bit. :)

chat

} 21:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My personal vote was to let Sandy or Marskell make the choice, but since I never voiced it on-wiki, I have no reason to object to Ryan's actions. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the lovely thing about IRC is that I didn't know this discussion was going on until I saw the page scheduled (I've always got Raul's back on the TFA ... and now y'all have me worried :-) I think Ryan's action is fine ... but I'm sure Raul would have gotten to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Ryan wasn't even on IRC when we were chatting, so he had no idea what was going on. :) MBisanz ^talk 21:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a joke about how much I love IRC, Mb :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I was planning on scheduling it now, but Ryan beat me to the punch. I've fixed his write-up. Raul654 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, many thanks. I thought better to be safe than sorry. I took the write up straight from the requests page until you could get to it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Phaedra Butler

A couple of weeks ago, Phaedra (R&B Songstress) was created by User:Brand Engine. The article was deleted as a copyvio from http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=50386241, and Brand Engine blocked for a username violation because the name is the name of Phaedra's management company (as was specifically mentioned in the article). The article was immediately recreated by User:BeSlickNick, with the exact copyright violation which got the article deleted in the first place. I felt that she wasn't particularly notable, and so instead of trying to get the article deleted as a copyvio, I listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phaedra (R&B Songstress), where the article was deleted as not notable on September 21. Well, now we have a brand new article, Phaedra Butler, with the same copyright violation, now created by a brand new user, User:DragonChin, who edits the same articles that the previous two users edited, with the same copyright problems. I've given DragonChin a pretty seriously ABF warning on their Talk page, but I'm wondering if we need to do something about the conflict of interest and repeated copyright violations from an obvious bunch of sockpuppets. Corvus cornix_talk 22:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps once it's speedied it should be salted until someone can show that they intend to create a non-copyvio version. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A non-copyvio version would still run into the notability concerns which were why the AfD was created in the first place. Corvus cornix_talk 22:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• As of this post, I did not find any "Phaedra" articles related to the songstress. -- Suntag ☼ 23:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

incident at Hibari Misora

I recently made a major edit to this article Hibari Misora. I included multiple references which are highly reliable. I removed a section which has been removed before by numerous editors, as it is just nonsense.

This editor Caspian_blue (talk · contribs) reverted it, and left numerous messages on my talk page. Claiming I am "page blanking" and making "dishonest edit summaries" [66]

I asked the editor many times on their talk page to explain how it is reliable. The editor refused to answer, and ignored me. The section removed is the only topic on the articles talk page, but that is all dated from last year. The article hasn't had many contributors, and it was kinda in a so-so state.

For some reason this article is on the editors "watch list" even though their ID never appeared in the edit summary before today. So I assumed this user was previously editing the article with a different ID. Apparently not, they are watching it because a sock-puppet who is a "Japanese ultra-nationalist, named Azukimonaka (talk · contribs)" edited the article." [67] Which I don't exactly understand, because Caspian blue appeared within 15 minutes after my edit, reinserted that one section, and left a warning on my talk page. I didn't even have time to check over the article again, and fix any minor errors. That is some pretty fast and detailed work for someone who hadn't edited the article before!

The section in question "Claims of Korean ancestry" is nonsensical. It says a weekly Korean newspaper in 1989 said she was Korean, yet there is no source for such a claim. The reference provided was from 2006, not 1989, and looks unreliable. Using a web translator, I can hardly find a mention of Hibari Misora. The "English source" is from a site, which appears to have gotten their information from an old wikipedia entry. It is impossible to find a Japanese source about such a topic, yet there is mention in the article of "counter-claims" by a Japanese newspaper. The part about the biographer is misleading, as the book mentions nothing about such a thing at all.

It is the only thing causing problems with the article, and many editors have tried to remove it previously. Something about Caspian blue's edits just doesn't feel right. 220.253.34.72 (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Open_Letter_Comments

Not sure what this is all about, but it seems to include an address and phone number, so I wanted to bring it here for evaluation. Arakunem^Talk 22:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted them and told the anon that they're in the wrong place, but since they're posting in Tagalog, they may not understand English. Corvus cornix_talk 23:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IUP

violations

Jdxboom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for edit-warring IUP violations into the Miley Cyrus articles. Today, he re-inserted one of the exact same violations. I reported at AIV, and was told that this behaviour didn't warrant a block, because This user was blocked for image-use violations, not edit warring, and he's only edited once today... I don't think that warrants a block. Look at the contributor's history: he inserted those images over, and over, and over, despite the number of times I explained he was violating IUP. He tested today to see if he could get it in without me taking it back out, and I see no reason to go back through a warning cycle.Kww (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we get a diff as to where the request was denied? Going back through a warning cycle is pointless.--

Crossmr (talk

) 05:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It was User:Master of Puppets here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And, as I expected, because the AIV report was ignored, he's now doing it again. Will someone please issue a block?Kww (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Rlevse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 48 hours. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Rlevse blocked for 48 hours. Jdxboom is lucky; I was edit conflicted trying to make it a week. No attempts at all to respond to talk page notes, just repeated edits that have to be reverted by others. If it starts up again, I'd say indef would be a good choice. --

barneca (talk

) 00:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Delldot advised you to submit a request here if the user continued. It's not that we ignored it; we just didn't see enough evidence at the time to warrant a block. All's well now, I guess. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandal targeting articles about novels by African-American authors

An angry Gen-Xer is hitting multiple articles with a copy-and-pasted statement saying that "There are also some refences to jazz". He is inserting it in multiple articles, hoping to avoid detection. I have templated him three times, but he is now recruiting collaborators. Just a notice to be on watch for dubious edits to such articles coming from a wide variety of anons. 65.190.95.8 (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: This notice was removed by one of his accomplices, User:67.174.220.98. 65.190.95.8 (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, 67.174.220.98 got blocked, as has 64.229.202.193, both of whom appear to be IPs you warned for this stuff. Is this still a problem? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. Offending IPs blocked. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat?

Resolved

 – Authorities contacted, after much debate. Please continue debate elsewhere, not here. If you continue it here, a kitten dies for every word you post. Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

03:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Here they mention they "thought" about killing themselves...but they can't...Probably a cry for attention, but should we be worried? --Smashville^talk 23:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is really not much we can do seeing as it is a registered account and not an IP, making contacting the Police impossible (unless a CheckUser was done). Anyways, the persona said he/she decided against harming themselves. Tiptoety ^talk 23:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just not something I've run across before...didn't know what we usually did here. --Smashville^talk 23:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For God's sake, of course there is something we can do! When somebody cries out for attention by talking about committing suicide, you don't just ignore it. Looie496 (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is this archived? It calls for an RFCU and a call to local authorities. Has this been done? Toddst1 (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but you are more than welcome to. Tiptoety ^talk 00:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You can if you like. Do it, and then post a note in the archived bit saying you've done so. No more public discussion is required. Re-archived, ignore attention seekers. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

RFCU Filed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fire&ice1. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I feel compelled not to let this drop quite yet. I was not being sarcastic, and the response here is a bit scary -- maybe a question about how to deal with suicide threats should become a standard part of RfA. The basic rule is that you do not ignore, belittle, or trivialize them. It's better to risk wasting your time than to risk an unnecessary death, even if you think the chances are low. Looie496 (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone with IRC set up can raise an RFCU and draw their attention to the report, it would be very helpful. Toddst1 (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike Godwin has just replied to my email, saying that "requests for IP numbers should be processed through [him]". On those grounds, a checkuser cannot assist you with your inquiries until such a time as Mike explicitly approves it. Daniel (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking it seriously enough, Daniel. I've dealt with this stuff before and limited release of IP information is okay, IMO, just not plastering it all over the wiki. We already reveal IP addresses at checkuser for much lighter reasons, IMO. Privacy policy covers that already and in this case, careful reading of the policy does suggest this can be done under clause 6. At least it does the way I read it. When it comes to a debate over the safety of another editor, I tend to err on the side of safety. I've seen too many real attempts and one real suicide on-line to not make light of this - Alison ^❤ 01:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, Mike sent that email 4mins ago (and in response to the current situation), so I would respectfully suggest that you get his approval before releasing any information derived from any page logs to anyone. Daniel (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I sent it via pmail as well to you about 5mins ago. Daniel (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not been propagated from the auth queue, so what happens now? I've the IP address and approximate location right here :/ - Alison ^❤ 02:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Godwin should also perhaps check his email outbox for a message he sent to checkuser-L on the same subject a week or so ago. Thatcher 02:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of disconnects here, IMO, Thatcher. Policy is vague and hand-wavy and in extreme circumstances (and I'm not saying this is), I'm going to have a serious problem sitting on my hands waiting for a response from the only WMF legal counsel we have. We need something put in writing as to how this stuff gets handled. It comes up far too often now and each time, it's down to the individual checkuser as to how to deal with it. This is the first real time I saw someone say that yes, Mike needs to personally vet each one of these. Weird considering I dish out IP addresses and ranges on a daily basis on egregious vandals as part of my job - Alison ^❤ 02:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike didn't say "each one". He simply agreed (to a small extent) with my position that this check isn't unambiguously allowed per the privacy policy. He didn't say "it's not allowed", but he didn't say "it's definitely allowed, go right ahead". I think he wants to evaluate whether it is permitted per the privacy policy and then authorise it, because this case is ambiguous. Daniel (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

←Then maybe I'm not seeing the ambiguity here. And therein lies the problem; this is so subjective right now, and we have no clear directives on this. Mike's email, as you point out, doesn't clear the way in the slightest - it's just brought more vagueness and confusion - Alison ^❤ 02:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Human life trumps wikipedia in-rule bullshit. Do what you need to do, Alison. Keeper ǀ 76 02:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The privacy policy isn't an in-rule; it's a legal document. From Privacy policy: "A privacy policy is a legal document that is dealing with the informations related to customer's and merchant's private profiles...The exact contents of a privacy policy will depend upon the applicable law. For instance, there are significant differences between the EU data protection and US data privacy laws". Urging martyrdom is not helpful, as this isn't a policy or guideline which we can just ignore. Daniel (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) it's interesting to hear from individual checkusers - and is it fair to say that you (Alison, Thatcher et al) feel more systemic clarity / support would be handy? - broadly speaking (and I"m pretty sure I'm preaching to the choir) if a checkuser feels there is any possibility such a comment is credible, the IP information should be forwarded immediately to appropriate authorities (locally for me, that would mean the police, in some cases this may be harder to determine). Are you perceiving a hurdle to this, Ali? and would writing this up as part of the checkuser system help? (and btw folks - see

WP:TOV for the most accurate description of wiki behaviour which isn't tagged 'policy' I've seen! - I think this falls under it's remit, to be honest....) best, Privatemusings (talk

) 02:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Privatemusings. Why does a

threat of violence have to be against another person before we act? Good lord, this is bullshit. Suicide notices are a threat of violence against ones-self. Act, god dammit. Keeper ǀ 76

02:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So is it now Wikimedia's official policy to not release information about suicide threats to the proper authorities when they have it? What exactly was in that email to Mike? KnightLago (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it was simply in this situation Mike wants any release of IP data to be confirmed by him; he must consider it ambiguous in some way. Daniel (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I can respect some level of ambiguity. However, if an editor, any editor, be they an IP or a username, threatens or alludes to committing suicide, all "rules" should be thrown out the window. Checkuser the account? Absolutely! Find out who this is, where they live, what there fucking blood type is, their favorite color, their favorite TV show, and everything else we can find out. And then, tell them to not fucking kill themselves. Anything less is inhuman, inhumane, and probably indictable. Keeper ǀ 76 02:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And we should trust your opinion that it's indictable over that of our general counsel because...? Daniel (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. We cannot allow ourselves to block access to aid for this person by discussing whether or not it is in due process. Maybe we should

Red 2 ~~~~

02:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For the seventh time, IAR does not extend to legal documents and other Board-approved resolutions, which in this case includes the privacy policy. To suggest someone does so is irresponsible on both your and their part. Daniel (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What's irresponsible, Daniel, is that you are filibustering an attempt to get aid to a suicidal user with legal jargon. I'll make this plain and simple: It's possible this person wants to kill themselves. We need to get them help so that they don't. If you disagree, you are unfit to occupy any position of Wiki-authority that you currently do. Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

02:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm merely passing along the message. It wasn't my decision to delay releasing it; I simply brought the issue to Mike's attention, who decided that all for this situation/incident all IP data releases should go through him. Daniel (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You can say it for the billionth time, daniel. Fuck that. I don't give a rat what the "board" says. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. An editor posted on our website that they were going to kill themself. If you seriously can put on your conscience that "well, we do have a privacy policy...", then fuck that. You have no idea what you are typing, and you are ill fit to be a checkuser/OTRS/admin/whateverthehellyouare. Keeper ǀ 76 02:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You are obviously unfit to offer an opinion when you don't appreciate the legal liability that rests upon the Foundation, and also don't appreciate that the Board is the final arbiter of all Wikimedia-related matters that occur on this and associated websites. Daniel (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm thrilled to be "unfit" to appreciate legal liability. I won't be the one sued for not acting, the board and foundation will. My hands are clean. I'm 99% sure that this suicide threat is exactly that, merely a threat. 99% of suicide threats are exactly that, threats. But, what if this is the 1%? Are you seriously gonna rest on "the Board is the final arbiter of all Wikimedia-related matters"? Why isn't the board acting then??? They should be acting, and they should discharge all possible avenues to act, including running a harmless checkuser on said registered account. Good grief, Daniel, your posts are coming across extremely dense and wikilawyerish. Are you a Wikipedia lawyer, or just a messenger? Keeper ǀ 76 02:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, I think you have forced your opinion that all releases of IP information after suicide threats are breaches of the privacy policy on Mike. Is there now someone who is going to be available 24/7 to vet this type of request to determine if it fits Wikimedia's new policy? As I hate to be the one to tell you this, but this happens every day! KnightLago (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike simply made a request for this situation. I think it's very unfair to say that my motives are simply to push my opinion generally; rather, I thought I saw a breach of the privacy policy coming up, and when I raised my concerns with Mike, he asked that any requests for IP release for this incident go through him, so he can fully analyse the request and make an informed decision either way. Daniel (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Clause 6 of the privacy policy is practically a blank check to release IPs, and Mike cited clause 6 in a previous email to the checkuser-L list regarding a recent prior suicide threat. I don't intend to put words into his mouth but I sure hope he issues a clarification. In the meantime, no one participating in this thread is in a position to conclusively resolve the matter, so I suggest we all find something else to do. Thatcher 02:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And while all this analyzing is going on, help is still not being dispatched to aide this person because any such aide is being hindered by a decision of whether saving a life is more important that following a policy. I would put that by making the statement that this user made on his talk page, he has released WP liability for rendering help since he specifically asked for that help and in such an explicit manner. A cry for help means "HELP", and any means by which we can do that should be done.-JavierMC 02:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing for sure; this is completely messed up. We've had conflicting advice from Mike on this issue now. In the absence of clear direction from WMF (tell me what the rules say here), I have to go with what I think is best. In this case, and in cases where I perceive there to be a clear threat to a person's safety, even from themselves, I know exactly what to do. Personally, I don't think I could stand to do otherwise. If this means a breach of privacy policy in the face of ambiguity, weighed against the safety of a person, then I'll take the chance with my fancy-schmancy checkuser job. The pay is dreadful anyways. Regarding Mike, I've met the guy enough times in person now, and I know that he's a smart, sensible, and understanding kind of guy. I'm pretty sure in the absence of clear direction on these matters, he'll understand - Alison ^❤ 02:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Alison, Mike explicitly said in this situation that he needs to approve any release. Have you tried contacting him? If you have not received his approval, either you're saying I'm lying about the email (which you have a copy of), or that you believe Mike has made the wrong decision and you have the authority to overturn and ignore it. I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt this is wise. Daniel (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I question the messenger and the exact nature of the message, this just does not make sense. KnightLago (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And another thing; I am not a professional counsellor, nor am I an agent of the law, nor a legal expert. Where I consider there to be a danger to a person and there's something I can do to assist, I tend to defer to the proper authorities and let them make the proper decision on it. In this case, it's the police. They can either take it seriously or fob it off accordingly - they're the experts - Alison ^❤ 02:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

From reading the situation, I think that there would be fewer objections if you gave the IP's directly to the law enforcement, but I'd suggest there'd be more if it went via another Wikipedian. Daniel (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't care who contacts the authorities, we just want the authorities contacted. I doubt anyone who posts suicide notes on Wikipedia would sue the foundation for breach of privacy. We want to protect the user in case they are actually suicidal, and sitting around here debating policy won't further that goal. Go ahead, Alison, contact the authorities. Please. Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

03:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On the phone to Mike here .... - Alison ^❤ 03:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Mike Godwin has granted me explicit permission to forward the IP information on to the local police authority. I'll do this just as soon as I'm finished typing here. Can we wrap this up now? We're done here. Move policy discussions to the RFCU talk page, plz - Alison ^❤ 03:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's how it was meant to be handled...ask Mike's permission and get it granted. Not "ignore Mike" or "ignore the privacy policy". Daniel (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse again

Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is no longer using his Lightbot to remove links to dates, but is now doing it using AWB. He still refuses to discuss this. Corvus cornix_talk 22:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page asking him to stop using AWB in this manner until he has discussed the issue with the community. Since his bot was halted for this kind of behavior, using AWB or other scripts to perform the same kinds of edits is unhelpful and inappropriate and might even be construed as disruptive. If he continues to edit in this fashion without addressing the concerns of the community, additional warnings regarding the behavior may be appropriate. Shereth 22:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit shows the reckless use of a bot without regard for the proper date format for the article being edited. This user must be blocked. Lightbot should be blocked indefinitely --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not go overboard, here. I dont' actually have a big problem with a semi-automated script as long as discretion is being applied. Most dates should probably be unlinked. It's only the automated unlinking of all dates (and reformatting of dates/units/etc. in quotes, etc.) that I think is the issue. Still, it would be nice if this editor would respond in some way to the concerns that have been expressed. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down! Lightmouse hasn't used his bot since it was stopped, and he appears to have stopped using AWB as requested when I left the comment on his talk page. It's unfortunate that he appears uninterested in discussing the situation here (or anywhere) but so far he's complied with requests to stop making these edits and this talk about blocking is, at this point, quite unecessary. Shereth 23:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If not blocking then at least his permission to use AWB should be revoked. This is looks fully automated to me. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith. Even if I agreed that there was something wrong with the edits, he hasn't used it since Shereth asked him to stop. There's no reason to block or revoke privileges or anything like that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As I said, he stopped doing it as requested. We don't use blocks and the like to punish, we use them to prevent - and at the moment, it appears that Lightmouse is not out to cause trouble and thus there is no bad behavior to "prevent". It'd be one thing if he ignored us and just went along with these edits, but he stopped. What's the rush to punish? Shereth 23:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My thankfully limited experience with Lightmouse has been that, as with Betacommand, it's his way or the highway. Where do these characters come from? And what's more important, who turns them loose here to do whatever they feel like, including not bothering to answer questions? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider this closed if Lightmouse has stopped editing dates, however I will point out that the link posted above shows that he was not just delinking dates; he was changing from one style to another, from "August 24, 1814" to "24 August 1814". This is the equivalent of switching era styles (CE to AD) or from British to American spelling (colour to color) or vice versa without a substantive reason. This is strongly discouraged by the relevant guidelines. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have found a clear example of where the bot operated by Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is not behaving in accordance with the manual of style [68]. This diff [69] to British Rail shows a clear change of a date that was in the correct format. Lightmouse must explain why a date that is compliant with the manual of style was changed, else the bot must be permanently stopped and Lightmouse given a temporary block as punishment. Olana North (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how that is a "clear example", considering all that was done was removing the autoformatting. It was left in British style of date formatting, as per MoS. Am I missing something? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Olana North's complaint has no merit whatsoever. Thie date in question was in UK (dmy) format, and linked for autoformatting. All Lightmouse did was to remove the autoformatting, entirely in conformance with the manual of style, which deprecates autoformatting. The date is still in UK format. There is no case to answer. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks to me like a debate about the Manual of Style. I am not sure if ANI is a place where the MoS can be redebated but this is what it says:

• Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a particular reason to do so
• The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated.

Discussion of the meaning of those words is best undertaken at

wt:mosnum

. That way, you won't just get my opinion.

With respect to the example of 'Burning of Washington' given by Steven J. Anderson, I agree that it should have been in US format. There are several editors on Wikipedia that are working to clean up the mess left by date links (they conceal inconsistent and wrong-side formats from registered editors but leave them visible to ordinary readers). One part of that work is auditing date links in articles and making the dates consistent. This involves choosing one format or the other depending on the MoS guidelines for mdy or dmy format. In that case, it came up in a search for articles containing 'British' in the title (and hence likely to require auditing to dmy format) as a redirect. It was incorrectly set to dmy and you are quite right to say it should be mdy.

With respect to the example of 'British Rail' given by Olana, Lightbot delinked '2001'. Lightmouse delinked '1 January 1948'. If those are not in accordance with the Manual of Style, then perhaps Olana and I have different views on the Manual of Style. I am under the impression that debates about MoS wording are best dealt with at the MoS talk page rather than at ANI.

Having done 300,000 edits relating to the MOS, it is inevitable that some people want to debate the MoS with me. I have probably spoken about date links and MoS wording on more occasions and with more people than anyone here. I am reluctant to stop editing just because some people regard the MoS as unfinished business - the MoS is always unfinished business - so is Wikipedia. I really strongly encourage people to debate MoS implementation at the MoS talk page. Is this an ANI issue? Lightmouse (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse, thank you for the response. I know several people, myself included, have been concerned by what seemed to be a lack of communication on your part. I agree that discussions of the manual of style are best handled there, but what is appropriate to discuss here are your actions related to the MOS and linked dates. What is troubling is that in neither case do the guidelines above completely support your actions.

For your first point, the key phrase is "unless there is a particular reason to do so". Without engaging the editors involved with articles with linked years, there is no way for you (or your script, or your bot, Lightbot) of knowing whether or not the linking has a particular reason.

For your second item: deprecation of auto-formatted dates does not equal their prohibition. There are compelling reasons to not auto-format dates, which is why they are now deprecated by the MOS. But I have not seen any consensus for immediate, mass-removal of auto-formatted dates. Further, to tie your two reasons together, there is no way for a bot or a script to tell if a date is "merely" auto-formatted or if there is "a particular reason" for its linking.

There's an somewhat disturbing old bumper sticker/t-shirt slogan (of which I am not very fond) that usually says something along the lines of "kill them all and let God sort them out". Regrettably, that seems to summarize your approach to your MOS date-related edits, an approach that some people find disruptive. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think this is more about being perceived as over-keen to enforce the MoS, than the MoS itself. I recently had to head off an impending edit-war caused by Lightbot delinking not only formatted dates (no problem there), but wikilinked 'year-on-TV' dates too. This was, in my view, an unnecessary aggravation. If some linked dates remain in an article for now, so what? It's really not a big deal; I seriously doubt if a single WP reader would care or even notice. However, causing needless conflict amongst those who write the encyclopedia is a big deal, when it can be avoided with a little tact and forethought ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot is not programmed to delink autoformatted dates so I am bit puzzled by your suggestion that it did. Please can you give me a link and I will investigate. With regard to 'year-in-X' links, they are often concealed to look like solitary years, or concealed within full dates so that they break autoformatting. Some editors had, reasonably, considered that solitary years are not as useful as targetted years but in many cases had simply replaced solitary years with a concealed link. Many projects recommend that 'year-in-X' dates are not hidden so that the reader only sees yet another blue solitary year. One recommendation is to make it visible by showing at least one non-date term to the reader, and the MoS is considering the same. If a link looks like a solitary year, it readers will treat it just like one. Consequently Lightbot did delink concealed links on the basis that they were just as likely to be ignored as solitary years. However, that feature has been switched off. Some year-in-X links actually break autoformatting and that is an extremely common error and that error-correction feature remains switched on. I wish some of the energy that was directed into keeping date links was directed into fixing the errors and inconsistencies it causes. I know that people like to ask me lots of questions, particularly if they disagree with the MoS or its implementation. I have probably expended more effort communicating about this issue, and to more people, than anyone here. Whether this is about the history of MoS text, the text itself, or the legitimacy of acting on MoS text, I am not the spokesperson for the MoS and sometimes it feels like people treat me as if I am. I still feel like this is all MoS talk. Is this an ANI issue? Lightmouse (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: What I'm speaking of above is directed at Lightmouse, the person, who controls both the account User:Lightmouse and the bot User:Lightbot. I know that he/she is very precise about which one has performed specific actions, but I'm speaking of the combined effects of both accounts. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And as an FYI, he is again actively removing date links through

AWB. — Bellhalla (talk

) 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an ANI issue because the primary concern is the method of enforcement of the MOS. If nothing else, the MOS is a style guideline and its application is thus open to debate and consideration. Furthermore, MOSNUM itself explicitly creates room for exceptions to the rule - linked dates are not always subject to unlinking per the guideline. Currently you are using AWB to make semi-automated edits to this effect at the rate of about 4 per minute, or once every 15 seconds. Do you mean to tell me that in a 15 second timespan, you have adequate time to load the page, read it over to contextually determine whether unlinking is necessary, and perform the edit? I think not. Your strict and unconsidered enforcement of MOSNUM is what is causing issues with editors. Again I will ask you to refrain from this behavior - while there is an open debate regarding the method of enforcement, it is not appropriate to continue to do so. Shereth 15:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an RFC is the best way to handle this? — ras52 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussions have brought up the possibility of an RFC on the bot. I think it would be an excellent way to clear up the confusion on how Lightmouse is choosing to enforce MOSNUM and get a better idea of how the community feels regarding the issue. Shereth 16:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Olana North provides this example of an edit that does nothing about except remove autoformatting. This could be brushed off as a MOSNUM issue, or issue about how quickly statements in the MOSNUM should be carried out, except that Lightmouse state above "Lightbot is not programmed to delink autoformatted dates". Now, the edit was made by Lightmouse (using AWB), not Lightbot, but this action suggest that Lightmouse is not fully in control of, or does not fully understand the operation of the bots he is using, which is an ANI issue. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the example of 'British Rail' given by Ashton, I delinked '1 January 1948' deliberately. What is wrong with that? Have a cup of tea guys. Lightmouse (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse managed to make 8 edits during the minute 22:25, 25 September 2008. He sure deliberates a lot faster than I do. Perhaps what he realy decided was that the AWB bot should process a list of articles he had compiled, on the basis that that the word "British" was in the title, remove all date links in those articles, and put all dates in those articles in the order day month year. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not an issue with the MOS. This is an issue with Lightbot. There is no consensus at MOS or anywhere else that all dates, whatever the format, should be unlinked. There is a consensus that dates should not be linked unless there is a reason to do so. "reason to do so" is something that can only be determined by a human being, not a bot. Also, please clarify: does your bot make format edits to direct quotes, categories, and other non-prose sections? -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Note related discussion at MoS talk started by the user in question

here. Shereth

16:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note this appear to also have some relation to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony1 dm (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to Lightmouse's diff request: I was incorrect about Lightbot removing fully-formatted date links; please accept my apologies. I appreciate your explanation of the other issue (this was the edit I had in mind), and that this function has now been deactivated. My concern about over-zealous enforcement of the MoS remains, though - not specifically directed at you, but at any editor (or bot) who takes it upon themselves to globally apply one interpretation of an often deliberately vague document. I've followed the various discussions at

WT:MOSNUM, and agree with delinking dates that are only linked for formatting reasons, but so far it's only at FA that I've encountered this as a de facto requirement. It may become more widely adopted, or it may not... but where there's leeway in the guidelines and an article is not up for formal assessment (and therefore not subject to strict application of a set of criteria), I think we end up doing more harm than good by being too prescriptive. EyeSerene^talk

16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think that what Lightmouse is doing is correct, appropriate, and desperately needed. The MOSNUM policy stating that dates should not be linked was thoroughly debated for a long time and is the result of a properly-arrived-at consensus. Links should be strictly limited to topics that are topical and germane to the article. Links to rambling lists of mindless trivia are virtually never topical and germane and just clutter up articles with excess blue that anesthetizes the mind. There are simply far too many of these links in far too many articles for any human to possibly hunt them all down and correct them; automated tools are the only way to go. And if the bot removes too many, it is far easier to restore the few false positives than to manually remove all those linked dates.

  Jimbo himself posted the most important rule of all on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” Well, in this case, Lightmouse has followed all the rules in his effort to improve Wikipedia. He just shouldn’t have to put up with any more flack from people who flat disagree with MOSNUM, just love their links to trivia, and want to drag this out with even more debate; such views have been discredited and Wikipedia is now well on the road to improvement. Greg L (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Very few of us are debating the merits of the MOS. What's in question here is how Lightmouse (here used to mean either User:Lightmouse or User:Lightbot) is going about imposing his/her interpretation of the MOS without discussion or a clear consensus. Take a look at what you wrote:

    Links should be strictly limited to topics that are topical and germane to the article.

    How does User:Lightbot determine which links are "topical and germane"? (Hint: it doesn't.) How does User:Lightmouse determine which links are "topical and germane", especially when he/she edits at an 8 article-per-second clip? I'd like to know the answer to that one. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand your issue. It is a legitimate one. But look at what else I wrote above:

There are simply far too many of these links in far too many articles for any human to possibly hunt them all down and correct them; automated tools are the only way to go. And if the bot removes too many, it is far easier to restore the few false positives than to manually remove all those linked dates.

There is no point having a MOSNUM guideline deprecating linked dates if the remedy (hand-removing them) would essentially take forever. Even at eight per second, it would take a bot 89 hours (24/7) to go through all 6,817,491 articles on en.Wikipedia. There is just no reason for the knee-jerk reaction to what his bots are doing; it is far, far easier to restore the false positives than to do what you propose. Greg L (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility, which I'm amazed the ancient history projects haven't already put forward, is a whitelist - articles which contain BCE dates or whatever else poses a problem can be added to it, and the bot then just goes "If on this pre-supplied list, ignore." That would allow the majority of articles to be fixed without issue. Also, people need to realise the bot is not the final arbiter, it's simply doing a system-wide task. Essentially if 98% of the switches should be flicked off and 2% left on, it's a tremendous waste to leave them all on or switch them off one by one ... makes more sense to switch them all off then switch back on the ones that are needed. Orderinchaos 11:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think that is a good idea and a great attitude, Orderinchaos. Why not propose it to Lightmouse? Clearly, de-linking dates is too monumental of a task without the assistance of a bot. So any suggestions that better marries the talents of humans and the productivity of bots is a good thing.

  I completely agree with your last sentence: “makes more sense to switch them all off then switch back on the ones that are needed.” That gives humans an opportunity to revise both the sentence and the link to avoid Easter egg links. We editors know what to expect of year links. But the supply of new and inexperienced readers is limitless. Easter egg links like this:

…but the

1821

death of Napolean was felt across the nation…

Now, you and I know what will happen if we click on that link. But I actually made the above link a reverse-Easter egg. Click on it. That’s how many new readers expect this form of link to work: as if it was “

1821 death

”.

Were it me, I wouldn’t even link “1821” in this context to a list of notable historical events. Furthermore, I suggest they be piped so new readers understand precisely what they are being taken to. This is in keeping with

WP:Principle of least astonishment

. I’d reserve links to years to especially notable years, such as a major point in the relationship of states. This properly anticipates what aficionados of history might like to further explore. They might naturally wonder “what else was going down at this time.” I’d do it as follows…

However, tensions were building between the two nations and, by 1811 (notable events of 1811), Alexander was under strong pressure from the Russian nobility to break off the alliance.

The above is just food for thought. The above suggestion has the virtues of…

1. The link is in an intrinsically historical article. As such, it is a link that is germane and topical to the subject; it properly anticipates what the reader would likely be interested in further exploring.
2. It is a year, not a date (2 May) that is linked. Dates should never be linked because they are nothing but rambling lists of purely random trivia that are always, entirely unrelated to the article in which they are imbedded.
3. It is an especially notable year within the article, where it is natural to wonder what else was happening throughout the world at that time.
4. The link is aliased (piped) so readers know precisely what they will be taken to, which is in keeping with the principle of least astonishment.

As you said, the first step is to let a bot do the mind-boggling enormous task of de-linking all those dates and years that never should have been linked in the first place. Greg L (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The first step is to suggest that the bot (and the user) not automatically unlink years in articles under the perview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Time and subprojects; that the bot check for other links to year articles and note that manual supervision is required if, say 1st century, 2nd century, and 3rd are present, etc.

And that Lightmouse be blocked if he continues to vandalize Wikipedia by removing year links in timeline articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lightmouse always tries to do the right thing for Wikipedia and is a responsible, mature member of the community. Like everyone else here, he is a volunteer. He takes his contributions seriously and the bots he labors over do a lot of good for the community. He’s been the recipient of two barnstars for his efforts over the years. So characterizing his activities as “vandalism” is a gross mischaracterization of what he does for Wikipedia. He tries his best to take a reading of the general consensus and move accordingly only after a policy is posted to MOSNUM. In most cases, simple oversights and unintended consequences in how a bot goes about its business are easily handled just by dropping Lightmouse a note; he has always struck me as being a reasonable fellow who is often quite busy tweaking new bots as a result of editor feedback.

  But on much rarer occasions, editors who’ve never had an occasion to weigh in on WT:MOSNUM, and who have had their articles affected by his bots will come to MOSNUM with less-then-enthusiastic support for a new guideline and the resulting bots. It is often these editors who accuse Lightmouse of vandalism and accuse him of witchcraft and all manner of activities that are supposedly responsible for all the plague and pestilence that has befallen their village.

  If his bots aren’t properly bringing Wikipedia’s articles into compliance with MOSNUM guidelines, then they just need tweaking. Simply advising him of that is all it has ever taken in the past. If that doesn’t resolve the issue(s), then, IMO, the dispute goes deeper than just a bot, and the problem really lies with the fact that the MOSNUM guideline itself is the source of the friction. If that’s the case, I suggest you take up your issue on WT:MOSNUM, where you could advocate adding some nuances and subtleties to the new guidelines. Greg L (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  P.S. I took the word of Bellhalla above literally that his bot goes through 8 articles per second. Uhm… no. It appears to be more like about 2.52 per minute. At that rate—which is far faster than any human could do it—it would take a bot 706 days (24/7) to go through all 6,817,491 articles on en.Wikipedia. I hope he has special searching algorithms that greatly reduces the number of articles that must be addressed. The shear magnitude of these numbers speaks to how this job could only be handled with a bot. Greg L (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Greg, I was on
  WT:MOSNUM just now, reading your characterisation of other's attitudes, and I think you are going too far. Please comment on the arguments, not on the people making the arguments. Overblown comments like "all the plague and pestilence that has befallen their village" really are not going to help. Please try and keep this specific to examples. Your example of "but the 1821 death of Napoleon was felt across the nation" misses the point. If an editor wants to direct people to reading about the death of Napoleon, they should do so as follows: "but the 1821 death of Napoleon was felt across the nation". And your argument that new readers are misled by 1821 is disingenous. You seem to be basing this on one person's experience - your own. When I first started reading Wikipedia, I clicked on year links expecting an article on a year, and that is what I got. What price now your assertion? Arguments based on what editors think readers want are notoriously unreliable, both yours and mine. Responding to your poitn about bot and bot operator behaviour, I see a mixture of helpful and unhelpful comments. This is primarily because global Wikipedia issues are poorly handled by a single user, no matter how diplomatic or skilled. The better approach is a team. This is what has at times been done with images, with multiple people working together, and the result is almost always better than if you have a single person using a bot to audit the whole of Wikipedia. Instead of defending Lightmouse and Lightbot, why not gather together a team of 4-5 people that will work together to build up a set of pages and achieve more, with more efficiency and diplomacy, than one person and their bot can do alone? Carcharoth (talk
  ) 20:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Carcharoth , you wrote “Please comment on the arguments, not on the people making the arguments.” That’s precisely what I did; I’m ridiculing their arguments, which are fallacious when they accuse Lightmouse of “vandalism”. Such allegations are total B.S. and I’ll have none of it. And if you are coming here, presuming to tell me that I can not ridicule someone’s arguments in a debate forum, you are mistaken; I’ll thank you not to presume to dictate to me how I may think or express my thoughts.

  As to this argument of yours: “[my argument] that new readers are misled by 1821 is disingenous (sic)”: No, it is not. Many such links are confusing. And that’s all beside the point anyway. Lightmouse’s bot is simply following MOSNUM guidelines. I won’t get baited into a wider argument over the merits of the guideline itself; I think it is a wise guideline that was properly arrived at. This ANI should be strictly focused over whether or not Lightmouse is doing something wrong, not whether or not you like MOSNUM’s guidelines.

  And at about this point in your above statement: “Responding to your poitn (sic) about bot and bot operator behaviour, I see a mixture of helpful and unhelpful comments”, well… I started to tune you out as you are clearly just as biased as the other editors railing against Lightmouse, accusing him of improper actions meriting an ANI and sactions.

  Finally, it is clear to me you are only trying to couch your arguments behind a facade of wholesome sounding catch phrases like “team efforts” and other rah rah P.C. baby pablum intended to paint yourself as a ‘big-picture/high-road’ thinker. But your basic message point that you are desperately trying to sell here (“pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”) doesn’t wash and I can see through it. I don’t like the style of argument you chose to employ here. I’ve seen it before with others, who have weak arguments and try to hide that shortcoming behind the apron strings of politically correct-sounding rhetoric. I’ll have none of that either. I will no longer respond to you here. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• To avoid forking this, my response to part of what you said above is here. I will say that you saying things like "I started to tune you out as you are clearly just as biased as the other editors railing against Lightmouse, accusing him of improper actions meriting an ANI and sactions (sic)", is a blatant assumption of bad faith, though I see from your talk page that this is nothing new. More generally, there is a line between pointing out that someone's discussion style is unhelpful (what I was trying to do, though as I've said, I should have gone to your talk page first), and something verging on a character assassination (saying that I am "couching" my arguments, constructing a "facade", using "wholesome sounding catch phrases", using "baby pablum", "painting" myself in a certain way, being "desperate" to sell a point, hiding behind "apron strings", and so on). A separate issue is saying "I will no longer respond to you here. Goodbye." I'm not personally affected by such statements, but I think they are unacceptable because they can have the effect of discouraging participation in a debate (the 'chilling' effect) and, more seriously, people may think this is an acceptable attitude in general (to give a good-faith contributor the cold shoulder when you get upset with them). I'm not going to say any more, but I would invite those reading this to say whether you or I crossed a line here, and whether your comments were acceptable. I stand by my point about teamwork (with bots) as opposed to a single bot operator and a bot, as that observation comes directly from my experience with what happened with Betacommand and his bot. Carcharoth (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the term “deprecation” means that a feature has been superseded and should be avoided; however, the feature remains, rather than being removed (although deprecation may indicate that the feature will be removed in the future). In this instance, it means that editors should henceforth cease adding autoformatting links for dates. As for the removal of those already extant, there has been no consensus developed for this to date. In fact, during the course of coming to consensus on their deprecation, I have pointed out several times that failure to obtain a consensus for their automated or semi-automated removal will generate a ruckus because it’s disruptive. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Users with views for or against the linking of dates in the first line of biography articles may be interested in this RfC, now open at WT:MOSNUM:

WT:MOSNUM#RfC: Linking of dates of birth and death -- Jheald (talk

) 17:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A State Of Trance

This user has been especially disruptive within the past few weeks, not only to me, but other editors. For simplicity's sake, I'll copy and paste the message that was left at

WP:AIV

, before it was removed and I was instructed to bring the situation here:

• A State Of Trance (
  censor Wikipedia; and even lying about there being a consensus to remove the image; as seen in his removal of the image after a final warning was given, here - [70]. ≈ The Haunted Angel
  21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit - he also persistently removes warnings. Although I do not believe that this is against Wikipedia rules, it is worth noting that the warnings issued to him can be found in his user talk page history. Another warning (an 'only warning') was added by another user, which he can be seen removing, here ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I've noticed this editor and have had a few had a few instances where it's been difficult to work with them. This version of their talk page shows several of the instances. One item is not a major offense, but is one that makes it a challenge to understand their edits. The second item is the suspected used of multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policy. This would be an egregious violation if it's a correct accusation.

Hi '

21:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up my original reason for reporting him -- but E_dog95 brought up the point of sock puppetry, and here are the accounts he kindly provided me with:

A State Of Trance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Alexander Vince (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Tiësto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Although going for a checkuser is an entirely different procedure, I'm going to make the assumption that doing so would be 'overkill', as it were, as this user has already proven himself to be little more than a vandal who does not heed warnings given to him ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This editor is probably associated with

A State Of Trance 2008, an album article that was deleted through an AFD recently but which has reappeared; I rejected a G4 request because one key part of the article has changed - the album has been released. Not sure if that has a substantial effect on things, but thought I'd share. Tony Fox (arf!)

22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst going through his talk page history, I seem to recall mention of said article and it's deletion, and possible recreation - so yeah, that's probably the source of his problems. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is where I warned him about the use of multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policy. This is related to the first afd process for

Hi '

22:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the removal of this complaint from the list I've added another user name that I've wondered was associated with the other two. I've added

Hi '

03:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This report has been removed by User:A State Of Trance tonight: partially here and completely here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

He has also added a frivolous final warning to Barek's talk page here, apparently for not properly wikilinking to his user page or something. I dunno. JuJube (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Applied 24h block. Haven't read the thread, but it's preventive after [71]. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Golly. That was a really, really dumb thing for A State of Trance to do, wasn't it? HalfShadow 05:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It was. But keep in mind that there were suspected sockpuppets working along side A State Of Trance during this incident and report. I would be posting this information on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, but that page has been locked for (at least) the last few hours. These [72], [73], and [74] show efforts to disrupt this report. They were posted by A State Of Trance, Alexander Vince, and Tiësto.

207.114.152.6 and Special:Contributions/207.114.152.220

I'm not sure where exactly to report this, so I'm doing it here.

IP address 207.114.152.6 has an agenda against a wikipedia editor named Ryan Holiday/TheRegicider who was involved in a COI incident. By his own admission he came from an external link [75] that was a blog post about aforementioned editor's COI. After he got here, his recent contributions should speak for themself. 207.114.152.220 appears to be a second number on an IP range - as can be seen from his contribution history, he has the same agenda.

There has been some slight disruption from these IPs, as seen in this incident of harassment and his removal of various links provided by Ryan Holiday/TheRegicider. [76] [77] [78]. These link removals may be acceptable by the rules but the spirit troubles me. McJeff (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed links that TheRegicider provided to his own website which is a blog. From reading wikipedia rules, this is proper editing ? And you removed my valid contributions and tryed to get me in trouble without talking to me first? Why? Is it because I am a newbie and I deserve to be punished? And rfrom your History you were recently Blocked for removing peoples messages from article conversation pages, so why do it to me? Please stop removing my comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.152.6 (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like

dispute resolution is the way to go with this one. Until this is at least tried (or one of or both the users refuse to try it), I'd oppose any administrator actions. Cheers. lifebaka++

03:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Personal Attacks

User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ has been making blatant personal attacks recently. This user has made defamatory statements about two editors by claiming that they may be living in "lala land".[79][80][81]

Also, there is a similarity between the edits listed above and this user page User:Nefbmn (they all involve information on genetics data regarding particular populations).

Furthermore, the user has created an article titled

Mandarin people that I suspect could be frivolous. As far as I know, there is such a thing as "native Mandarin-speaking people"; however, I have never heard about ethnic Mandarin people, only North-Easterners (of China), Hebei people and the like. It needs to be thoroughly reviewed and possibly split. 122.105.150.242 (talk

) 04:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and I, as well as a few other administrators, are looking into this user's contributions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it, could you please also investigate the possibility of a connection between User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese and User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ? According to the user log for User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese, User:Nefbmn appeared after an indefinite block was placed for a violation of the username policy. As I have remarked above, there is a disturbing similarity between Nefbmn's userpage and some of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ's recent contributions. If this alleged connection is proved, then it will become very clear just what the user's agenda is. Thanks. 122.105.150.242 (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to post a request at WP:RFCU for this. I doubt that anything will be achieved from a check on User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese because the edits are too old.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese's edits were made just over two months ago. This should be usable for CheckUser. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All three are the same. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So what's next? Will the user accounts in question be soon indefinitely blocked? Will the block against User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese be revised to include a ban against account creation (it can still be used to create new accounts as of writing)? Geez, I never thought that it would be possible to sign up with a racist username and get away with it. 122.105.147.127 (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the reply sequences in this AN/I section reminds me of the "wacky wavy inflatable arm flailing tube man" gag from Family Guy. Orderinchaos 07:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

the anon editor 122.105.149.69 is also known as David873, who has been blocked for disruptive editing, and harrasmentㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Original research on Zeitgeist, the movie

WP:NORN is that there is precisely one correct response to these edits, short of actual references magically appearing. Someguy1221 (talk

) 20:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a comment on the article talk page. In view of Friedonc's last post, I don't think this has reached a point where it require the intervention of administrators. -- Suntag ☼ 00:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that a kook film attracts kooky edits? Guy (Help!) 11:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Assuredly

I think it's time to bring this user here. This user has been disruptive and unpleasant to work with. The dispute began on Hurricane Ike's

Tropical cyclone Wikiproject (whose importance was being debated) was that the hurricane should not be top-importance, and multiple times the changes were reverted. Initially, there were not enough changes to enact a 3RR, although it later became evident there were sockpuppets involved - there is a current open Sockpuppetry case

.

While this was going on, there was some discussion on the user's talk page. At first, it was relatively civil, although the user quickly developed the habit of removing potentially problematic posts; here, the user removed a simple notice to sign posts on talk pages. On September 16, User:Plasticup notified the user not to revert more than three times in a 24 hour period., which was quickly removed. I added it back, and again it was quickly removed, without explanation.

After that, I tried striking up an off-topic conversation regarding music, though the user quickly turned the subject to contacting me, other than by email or Wikipedia. I offered contact via IRC, which was followed by the user asking for my phone number. I indicated I did not want to be contacted by phone, and very creepily the user said, "how do you know I don't already have it?!" There's plenty more in the user talk page, but I think you get the gist. Within the last 24 hours, the user reverted/undid its sockpuppetry page several times (gotta be five or more). I kept reposting them, and got this message - would that be considered a threat?

I should mention something else. One of our project members - User:thegreatdr - is a government employee; he left me a disturbing message that a Wikipedia user called him, at work, complaining about the importance assessment of Hurricane Ike on Wikipedia. I strongly believe it is this user. I feel there is more to tell, but this is a good start. How do we deal with this user? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

After

Hydrometeorological Prediction Center. His next attempt was with WJBscribe, who refused him too. After a brief sockpuppetry case, Assuredly (et al.) disappeared for a few days, but resurfaced once again, with a new name. Given his persistently combative approach to everything from wikipedia to music to my geographical location I find myself unable to reason with him and join Hurricanehink in requesting assistance. Plasticup ^T/C

03:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

See also two sections down. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The socks are currently blocked. The main account and any further sock attempts will hopefully likely be nailed by an autoblock for the time being. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuredly has been blocked indefinitely by

talk

) 09:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call. fish&karate 11:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)