Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Retired username (talk | contribs) at 02:40, 29 September 2006 (→‎Disruption from [[User:ClairSamoht]]: thoughts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion



    Possible sockpuppet of Cute 1 4 u

    Hello I believe that this user New York from Flavor of Love may be this indefinatly blocked user Cute 1 4 u. Check this dif [1] and talk page Leroyencyclopediabrown for the possible proof. If I'm wrong on this I appolize in advance but Cute 1 4 u does have a history of sock puppet and ban evasion. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 02:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition I once I commented on that user being suspicious the comments that were made by New York from Flavor of Love were removed. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 02:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not an admin, but this looks somewhat similar (Cute 1 4 u did once create an account impersonating Raven Symone). I'd file a RFCU. --Coredesat talk. o_O 02:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about it, thanks I will should I post the findings here or will not not be needed? Æon Insanity Now!EA! 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any findings in the RFCU should probably be posted here unless it comes back positive and she's indef-blocked right then and there. But it looks somewhat definitive, looking at the user's edit history. --Coredesat talk. o_O 02:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Coredesat. I caught one of hers last week and the writing style is VERY similar to here other socks. I will post the finding once they come in. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 02:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The account *could* be blocked per WP:USERNAME I think... "New York" was in fact the nickname given to a real contestant on the first season of Flavor of Love (generally only the nicknames were used on the show) and thus this name more-or-less falls afoul of the "Names of well-known living people" clause. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking at the userpage and what BoG said, I decided to issue the username block. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it just me, or does anyone else find it absurd how much people-power is being thrown at stopping an alleged 11 year old female sockpuppeteer from "abusing" Wikipedia as a social network? --  Netsnipe  ►  04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I take it from your use of quotation marks that you disagree with the characterization of social networking as an abuse of Wikipedia? Choess 06:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, based on this diff and the message the most current IP placed on Leroy's talk page, it's definitely her. She thinks she can hide stuff by deleting it. Ryūlóng 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, just call me Ed.=) I apologize to everyone who has been trying to contact me overnight. I (obviously) was sleeping. Anyway, I think that Cute 1 4 u should be given one more chance. Two reasons for this. First of all, she doesn't have to keep making new accounts just to prove her point. Second, it removes the hassle of blocking EVERY SINGLE account she makes. We all know she's going to make more and more accounts.--Edtalk c E 12:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree, she was blocked for Sockpuppet abuse, impersation, Vandalism and the 11 year old part was just added ammo to the case. And the Check user came up possitive. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    New York from Flavor of Love and 75.34.176.105 have both been blocked indef as sockpuppets, although I thought that IPs shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. Was there an exception made? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You know that she's going to make a new account anyway! What's the point for all of this hassle? This is a complete waste of our time! If we just give her a second chance on Wikipedia, less time for us working on her case, and one more volunteer Wikipedian.--Edtalk c E 02:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cute 1 4 u welcomed Starcare, who is likely a puppet of Publicola, who is likely a puppet of Pepsidrinka. Hard punt. Lots of socks involved here.--Scribner 03:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You see? The situation's getting worse. The only solution is to back off or get more admin power.--Edtalk c E 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Scribner obviously has something against Pepsidrinka, so I'm taking his comments with more than a pinch of salt. – Chacor 03:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's way too much of a stretch. Ed, sorry, but Cute 1 4 u has just done too much. Yeah, she'll keep coming back, and she'll continue to contact you, and we'll continue to deal with her. If she realizes that she's not helping, then we'll stop blocking, but as long as she continues to contact you and admit that she's who she is, then we have to block her. Ryūlóng 04:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryulong, I'm not the only one she might want to contact. Do you even realize that she could be lurking around Wikipedia right this moment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed (talk • contribs)

    75.34.12.156 is another one. Posted on my talk page Æon Insanity Now!EA! 07:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about this IP you found, but I think we should wait until she does something else before we take action against this IP.--Edtalk c E 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was blocked it was her (The post admited it) Æon Insanity Now!EA! 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How long is the block? --Edtalk c E 00:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Another Possible one Prple space mnky@hotmail.com edited with the summary Got to keep it real on edit summary (Dif [2]) a phrase that she used many many times as her qoute. Caught this one while monitoring recent changes Æon Insanity Now!EA! 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is Cute 1 4 u. If I had any socks, I'd admit them. I already told you all of them. But Ed is right, I'm trying to prove my point. --75.33.230.133 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not Prple space mnky@hotmail.com , User:Starcare, or User:Publicola. I swear, I don't even know them. However, to prove my point, all i can say is that i have a new account and I am much nicer on that account. Ed is right. --75.33.230.133 02:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I may have found another sock and I requested a check user (Came up again on Recent changes, edits article that were created by other socks with teh same grammer an such) Æon Insanity Now!EA! 02:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    More or less confrimed the sockpuppet. Autoblock got it (See TV Lover) Æon Insanity Now!EA! 04:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, Cute 1 4 u (or whatever) is going to get me a headache. I tried asking her why she's doing this on her talk page, but she said she's "going to commit 'suiside' ," or something. I don't know... I know this may sound stupid, but can't we block her IP address, so she stops creating these annoying sockpuppets? Cheers! The RSJ - SPEAK 03:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    She's on a dynamic IP, SBC, I believe (according to the WHOIS reports). There's not much we can do but keep blocking her new accounts. She's not committing suiside any time soon. Ryūlóng 05:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please clarify your statement? "Committing suicide"? Is it literal or figurative? --physicq210 05:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Prob Figurative she is 11 years old and has a history of being overly dramatic. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 05:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She'll be back tomorrow, probably recreating that article of hers. Ryūlóng 05:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have any way to protect the page from being created, say, creating a blank article then fully protecting it? Shadow1 17:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the article she keeps creating? Æon Insanity Now!EA! 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This situation is getting nowhere. In fact, it's getting worse. She will keep making new accounts, and you know that. We must find a permanent solution to this.--Edtalk c E 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The soulition is simple keep blocking her. We can't block her IP with out cuasing other issues. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone contacted SBC about this user? Letting them know that the misbehavior of one 11-year-old kid might lead to Wikipedia blocking their entire DHCP range could be an incentive for them to listen. -- llywrch 19:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I must tell you something. I live in the same area as Cute 1 4 u (not the same suburban area, we don't live close together or anything, we both in Metropolitan Chicago, which is in the United States). Anyway, SBC changed to AT&T in Chicago. AT&T bought SBC, so I have no idea what you guys are talking about.--Edtalk c E 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me get my facts straight. Take a look at SBC Communications, which says that SBC was the one who bought AT&T. They then changed their name. --Edtalk c E 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm am not misbehaving. I had stress but it has gone away. Not creating any more accounts. If I have to come back when I'm 13, I guess i'll create another account then. Say what you want. Don't contact me llywrch, I don't know you. --75.34.176.207 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    With that begin said I may have found yet one more sockpuppet of Her. I have requested another check user. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Another day, another sockpuppet, eh? What's the newest sockpuppet called now? Cheers! The RSJ - SPEAKThe RSJ at the RS Wiki 20:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But Crystal (that's her real name, so everyone would know) already said she's not creating any socks.--Edtalk c E 23:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And I don't beleive her. Check my talk page for the latest. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 03:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ed, I'm not. That other sock was before i made my earlier statement. --75.33.249.5 05:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    on Aeon's page I met to say I wouldn't make anoter sock p. --75.34.185.51 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I checked Cute 1 4 u's block log, and I am very surprised that we banned a user for being a certain age. Either I'm misreading the block reason, or we have just banned an account because she was 11 yrs. old. I don't think this is right. If Cute 1 4 u was blocked because of many other reasons such as vandalism, then that should appear on the block log.

    In addition, I'm beginning to question her block reasons. The sockpuppettering is already proven. (with all of the accounts that came up here on ANI. But vandalism??? Where's the vandalism here??? I think we should recover the supposed vandalism in question.--Edtalk c E 13:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone think this is enough to get her unblocked? If you think about it, the sockpuppeteering started just because she was blocked for being a certain age, the link to her block log is above. And there really wasn't any proof she was going to vandalise Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed (talk • contribs)
    Well, the admission to being part of S-man's "vandalism project" on top of all of the other things that she did (sockpuppetry, MySpace treatment, personal attacks, civility, etc.) all led to her block. If she just sits it out and/or stops making evident that she is who she is, then we won't have to bother her about it. But the fact that its now starting to bother you and other users is beyond anything. Ryūlóng 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actally I just stopped that. And Ed's right. Why am I blocked for being 11? I can't change my age untill years past. He did the vandalism. I though about and said yeah but after that i was gonna sasy no but I was blocked. Now you think about it. Are you really being fair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)
    Then why does the edit summary state her age as the main problem? I suggest that the blocking admin unblock her and provide a better block summary. And in addition, where's the proof that she was vandalising with S-man? I don't see any proof anywhere.--Edtalk c E 23:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant block summary. =) --Edtalk c E 23:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She has made some descent edits. I think we should re-enable her account if nothing else after a short break period of maybe a month or so. Anyways, that is my 2 cents. --Mattwj2002 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so, too. What I'm thinking is that we get her account unblocked and put her on a monthlong probation. During the probation period, we will be watching all of her contribs and things like that. If she does something questionable, we block her with no questions asked.--Edtalk c E 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I initially believed that this user deserved another chance. The behaviour since the block was placed between this user and the numerous sockpuppets, some of which were created after the block, has shown to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that this user has no intention of becoming a good editor and has no compunction against blatantly flaunting Wikipedia's rules and regulations. While this is clearly an opinion, I am firmly against unblocking this user's account. If the user cannot even be trusted to behave while a block is in effect, what possible reason do we have for believing the user will act properly if unblocked? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me fifty times and I'm a moron. --Yamla 00:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent)Please rephrase your last 3 sentences. They don't make sense. =) Anyway, why do you think that Cute 1 4 u has been sockpuppeteering? Maybe the block would have affected it. Even then, putting her on probation shoud do the trick.--Edtalk c E 01:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    She was being a sockpuppeteer long before her indefinite block. User:Raven Symone, User:Skittles Lover, and others that have been proven at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cute 1 4 u, one of which was long before the block was imposed. I would not feel it wrong if Yamla decided to change the block summary to something else; something that just doesn't show that she was blocked on the reason of her age, but that along with the many other reasons I have mentioned above. Ryūlóng 06:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this situation is becoming corrupt:

    • Cute 1 4 u was blocked for being a certain age, as stated in her block summary. As far as I'm concerned, whatever is in the block summary is the basis of her block.
    • She wasn't going to vandalise Wikipedia. She planned to vandalise the sister projects, but not Wikipedia. There's a difference. The admins at the appropriate sister projects should have been notified.
    • We're making wild assumtions that Cute 1 4 u keeps making sockpuppets. I know that she admitted to some of the socks, but what if the accounts were controlled by her siblings or relatives or something? At her original userpage, Cute 1 4 u established that she had siblings (I think).--Edtalk c E 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • She said she wasn't going to vandalise wikipedia. She's already shown a willingness to ignore our rules by creating socks. There are no wild assumptions when she's admitted to some of the sockpuppets. If one of those accounts really was a family member, that is unfortunate, but really too bad. Sometimes someone does something that ruins it for everyone. If the family is really that bent out of shape over it, they'll have to take it up with her. Maybe she'll learn something.--Crossmr 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    i'm back. User:Shakim67 is not my family member and my family is not out of shape or whatever you wanna say. My point of createing sockpuppets is to show you my good edits. And i admit, I can be one evil bitch [3] (if that's what ya wanna say), but I can also be a best friends and very nice.i don;t care what you need to say to me. Any way, i was planning to vandalize other wiki products, but decided not. I was gonna tell S-man i changed my mind but I was then already blocked. so thats my side of the story. --75.34.188.39 01:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, maybe we should try and view your side of the story and review this situation in an unbiased manner!!!--Edtalk c E 02:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating sockpuppets to show your good edits is calling disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is bad, mkay? Ryūlóng 02:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    SORRY, MY KEYBOARD'S GETTING STUCK ON THE CAPS LOCK KEY. I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.--Edtalk c E 02:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm rescinding that last comment, as you appear to be lying a bit. Ryūlóng 03:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    i didn't say shakim was my sockpuppet. He's a different person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs) .
    That's not what your sockpuppetry comes from. It's from User:Christy06, User:New York from Flavor of Love, and whoever else you made. Those sockpuppets were used to solely evade your block and continue editting, and now, you just edit anonymously, bring attention to yourself, and impose another block on your IP for the day. Ryūlóng 03:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you've hit the mark, Ryūlóng... she wants attention! •The RSJ• (Main Hub - Rants) 19:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not want attention. I just wanna go back to wikipedia. (The 1st block) I wanna know why am i blocked for being 11? --75.31.247.39 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your continued blatant abuse of Wikipedia (continuing to bypass blocks and continuing to create abusive sockpuppets) shows quite clearly why you should be blocked. At this point, I'm in favour of instantly banning any sockpuppets on site and providing long-term blocks of any IP address used by this user. Continuing to edit the Wikipedia while blocked is abusive behaviour. No ifs, ands, or buts. Additionally, we should consider additional steps to prevent the continued abuse from this user. I'm not sure what else can be done, though. Perhaps a block of the entire IP range, though that has a high possibility of hitting innocent third parties (in which case, it is clearly inappropriate). Perhaps contacting the ISP and having them terminate the abusive user (though I'm not sure if this is kosher). --Yamla 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Range blocking this user will result in a DoS of what may be all SBC customers in the Chicago area, and taking legal actions against an 11 year old doesn't sound too easy. Ryūlóng 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. Placing a range block hinders the editing of numerous editors from Chicago. WE NEED ANOTHER SOLUTION.--Edtalk c E 18:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like you're all in luck guys. There was a tornado warning in effect yesterday in the Chicago area. No, there was no major damage to Chicago (I think), but the Internet connections have been cut off. In fact, I haven't been able to edit Wikipedia until right now until my Internet came back. (I live in the Chicago suburbs). So...just sit back, and relax. --Edtalk c E 18:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) To get through to you, a bit, Ed, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THIS CONVERSATION, AMIRITE? We are trying to figure out a way to deal with Cute 1 4 u, which may just end up getting her (and by proxy her parents') internet subscription cancelled for a period of time, and this would force her parents to input parental controls so that she cannot utilize Wikipedia, but this would have to be done at some point through legal actions, and I don't think Brad or any of the other Wikimedia legal reps wants to have to sue an 11 year old girl. Ryūlóng 18:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, although I believe Cute 1 4 u's abuse has gone way out of hand, I don't think it is realistic to seriously consider suing her. There's virtually no potential upside as far as I can see, and substantial downsides. Plus WP:LEGAL. Also, blocking all of Chicago isn't a good plan because it would affect editors like Ed, though if we could find a way to do so without affecting other users, I would strongly advise that action. I wonder how difficult it would be to contact the ISP and report the long-term deliberate abuse, and whether it would result in any change. Apart from that, the only other option I see is permanent bans on the sockpuppets and long-term blocks on any IP address used by this long-term vandal. Perhaps IP blocks of a month at a time, until and unless we block a legitimate editor accidentally (not just another abusive sockpuppet). --Yamla 19:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, legal suit was just the only thing I could think of (I'm a marine biologist/chemist/geologist/anthropologist, not a lawyer :P). The best we can do is just what Yamla has suggested. Indefblock registered users that are proven after either edits, an RFCU, or an autoblock, and long-term block IP addresses that she claims to use, which may sadly end up blocking the Chicago area's SBC users. Ryūlóng 19:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindenting, with edit conflict)Blocking Cute 1 4 u's IP range will affect all SBC users. In addition, SBC has better things to worry about than our problems with one of their clients. For example, almost all of their Chicago customers are cut off from the internet because of the tornado last night. With that in mind, SBC would consider Wikipedia one of their least problems--Edtalk c E 19:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, when the time passes, we will have to send an abuse complaint to SBC concerning Cute 1 4 u's actions in the various Wikimedia projects. Rangeblocking is certainly out of the question, for now, but IP blocks will help (even though it appears that a new IP edits every day). Ryūlóng 19:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So what? Are we going to notify SBC or deal with the situation ourselves.?--Edtalk c E 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a feeling that Cute 1 4 u will be making more socks. In fact, she might have a sockpuppet going around Wikipedia right now! Do we have a category page where we can just put all of her socks? That way, we can look through all of them and try to predict what her next sockpuppet would be.--Edtalk c E 14:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I don't have any socks at the present time. I would have made a new account. But i'm interested in real life. :P Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)

    I think an indefinite block was a little much. I think if you give this user another chance she will be more careful in her actions on Wikipedia. Jecowa 19:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What's this based on? Her continuing stream of abusive edits since the initial block? The large number of abusive socks she continues creating? An editor who continues blatantly and deliberately abusing the Wikipedia and lying about her actions while a block is in place is not, in my opinion, someone proving themselves likely to "be more careful in her actions" in the future. --Yamla 03:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not being optimistic here. First of all, haven't you ever considered the fact that Cute 1 4 u made many USEFUL edits? In addition, she may have become angry, stressed, and upset after learning that she was being banned for a certain age. Even if her block reason was changed, she might have thought she was being blocked for being 11. In fact, review User talk:Cute 1 4 u and see the original reasons for blocking her.--Edtalk c E 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe I have found yet one more (User:Sweet Pinkette) and I fully support an indef ban Æon Insanity Now!EA! 13:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call. I checked the dialogue you 2 had, and you didn't provide a link to Cute 1 4 u's userpage. So how did she know anything about that? On the other hand, she as been editing since June 24, a date before Cute 1 4 u established socks.--Edtalk c E 00:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I knew the situation is going to end up like this months ago when I discovered the Raven Symone sock. Then Cute 1 4 U uses another sock User:Gemini to defend herself. I contacted Fred Bauder (who laugh it off) and discuss the presence of children on AN/I, no one took much notice/attention. Anyway this seems like a classic case of wikilawyering similar to the case of User:PoolGuy (creating endless socks and continue to push the the idea that he did nothing wrong initially). We don't even know if Cute 1 4 U is really 11 or not. She might faked her age so some users will be more lenient on her since she's a kid. Anyway, rules are rules. Age, sex, and other backgrounds are irrelevant. If we make a bad case by unblocking Cute 1 4 U, guess what? Next time all the vandals are going to disguise as elementary school kids. She should stay block indefinitely as well as any IP/accounts she alledgely uses (similar editing pattern etc). Gaming the rules and circumventing blocks are not constructive. She mess with the rule, she's staying block. it's simple.--Bonafide.hustla 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Who's Fred Bauder?--Edtalk c E 00:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fred Bauder is an admin and arbitrator.--Bonafide.hustla 01:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I don't have anymore. I already revealed them all. Just, I don't know, block me. This will probably be my last comment here. I already said my sorry but someone deleted it. If I do come back, it probably be when I'm 13, maybe... --Cute 1 4 u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.0.106 (talk • contribs)

    Well that's just depressing.--Edtalk c E 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this comment is enough to warrant an unblock. She has apologized already. Go back to those days when you were in Kindergarten. Didn't the teacher always forgive you if you say sorry? Same situation here. In Wikipedia, Cute 1 4 u is a fairly young editor who doesn't know any better. She is at an age when they like to be licentious.--Edtalk c E 02:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This too-forgiving attitude is a reason why there are so many irresponsible idiots around despite forced universal education. —Centrx→talk • 03:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's better than the unmerciful nuns who would slap your hands with a ruler--Edtalk c E 03:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone is biased in this situation now. Ed, Crystal has attached herself to you and you are starting to feel sorry for her, even when she broke way too many of Wikipedia's rules, and she has now become banned. We all have to get on with our lives now. Ryūlóng 03:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I like to point out that Crystal is not even allow to edit here with her IP on the ground that she is indefinitely banned. The only place she is allow to communicate is her personal talkpage. Editing with her IP in order to gain sympathy and support is another violation of her indef. block. Another issue is that we have no way of knowing her real age, I remembered a thread from Fred Bauder back in early August saying Crystal claimed to be 15 on myspace and 13 on blackplanet. Age is irrevelevant in this issue. I highly doubt her "contributions" to the project will be missed.--Bonafide.hustla 03:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like she should have the right to defend herself in this discussion concerning her. Also she cannot edit her personal talk page because it has been protected. She apologizes many times. She is interested in continuing as a wikipedian here. A vandal would have just forget the discussion and make new accounts to vandalize with. She really wants to be here. She has already served a month of "ban" for her policy violations. Could you please let her come back? --Jecowa 05:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's what a vandal would do and that's what she has done, over and over and over again. If she had served one month without vandalising, I'd be willing to support her coming back. But how many sockpuppets has she created in that time? How many edits has she performed? These numbers are so far above zero that I'm not sure it is fair to categorise the past month as "served". --Yamla 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note, I have unprotected the banned user's talk page. It was protected by another admin and was done so because the banned user was blatantly vandalising the talk page itself. I'm hoping that Cute 1 4 u has learned enough to refrain from vandalising that page any further, though given the large amount of abuse over the past month, my hopes aren't that high. --Yamla 19:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I happen to agree with User:Bonafide.hustla:
    "I knew the situation is going to end up like this months ago when I discovered the Raven Symone sock. Then Cute 1 4 U uses another sock User:Gemini to defend herself. I contacted Fred Bauder (who laugh it off) and discuss the presence of children on AN/I, no one took much notice/attention. Anyway this seems like a classic case of wikilawyering similar to the case of User:PoolGuy (creating endless socks and continue to push the the idea that he did nothing wrong initially). We don't even know if Cute 1 4 U is really 11 or not. She might faked her age so some users will be more lenient on her since she's a kid. Anyway, rules are rules. Age, sex, and other backgrounds are irrelevant. If we make a bad case by unblocking Cute 1 4 U, guess what? Next time all the vandals are going to disguise as elementary school kids. She should stay block indefinitely as well as any IP/accounts she alledgely uses (similar editing pattern etc). Gaming the rules and circumventing blocks are not constructive. She mess with the rule, she's staying block. it's simple."
    As it says here, there is no way to prove that Cute 1 4 u is eleven! For all we know, she might be the world's oldest woman (or man, but let's not go there)! And if we do unblock Cute 1 4 u, other people will do the exact same thing! This is apparently the downside of having Wikipedia articles so popular on search engine lists on the top of search engine; random, WikiDestructive people that want to take advantage of Wikipedia join, and then vandalize just because they think it's cool that they can change a web site article that many people will see! And excuse me, Cute 1 4 u, if you really do want attention, you're getting it. •The RSJ• (Main Hub - Rants) 02:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins who don't edit articles

    Available at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

    • Ryulong, reverting right away is a bit extreme, don't you think? At least leave a genuine precis so that folks will know to click on the link -- something like: "A policy idea regarding whether people who do not add content should be allowed to be administrators at Wikipedia." It's not an AN/I issue, granted (though it might fit at AN), but just blowing it out of the page is at least slightly hostile. Geogre 13:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the proposal is here [4]. Geogre 13:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but I just reverted the linking from WP:VPP back to the full name; that didn't seem to serve much of a purpose. Ryūlóng 21:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I got it wrong, I certainly apologize. I got a note on my talk page inviting my input, and then I saw nothing here. It looked like someone had been peremptory, and I misread the history. Again, my apologies if I was hasty/confused. Geogre 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A year or two from now when you have substantial administrative responsibilities and no time to edit you will have a different viewpoint, assuming you become productive. Fred Bauder 13:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fred, can you possibly be speaking to Geogre, who has been an admin for several years and is a massive contributor of top quality content? He writes an article a day and has created some of our best Featured articles. If I were one tenth as productive as Geogre is, I'd be proud. If you were a hundredth part as productive as Geogre is, you'd be... not sure how to finish that sentence, except you'd be better placed for criticizing him than you are. Did you post in the wrong thread or something? Bishonen | talk 13:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    No, although I was not aware of his editing. All I know is my own story, which is that if I start doing a lot of editing (or anything else) I soon fall behind on arbitration work. So if I were as "productive" as Georgre, there would be a mess and I could hardly call myself productive at all. Fred Bauder 14:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at the discussion there, Fred. You could offer valuable evidence. It's true that outside work can eat up all one's time, and each of us has to make choices, but I feel a bit irresponsible if I go too long editing and don't do the mopping up that I do have time for (mainly CSD, in my case, as it rarely entails long arguments, but sometimes DRV and less often AfD), and I can assure you that, if I were to be in a more involving duty, I'd feel creepy if I went too long without doing some editing. I, personally, find that disrespect is the real subtext here, and that disrespect comes from either ill will or ignorance. We can't stop the one, but we must stop the other. Geogre 14:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not knowing what CSD or DRV is, I feel like a just wondered onto a strange MUD and got ambushed by a "killing cloud" just outside the Village Church. I think if someone volunteers 30 hours a week and does good work, they should not be under pressure to do more, whether I know who Giano is or not (I did not, nor had I ever noticed you before). Fred Bauder 14:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't that tell you that you ought to investigate? Wouldn't that be particularly true if you were having to assess the validity of the comments? I won't comment on the logical weakness of insisting that 30 hr a week spent any way is the same as 30 hr a week spent a productive way. If you don't know the players, you could at least take a look at the program. Also, if someone were to be arbitrated for "tagging for CSD ianppropriately," wouldn't you want to know that that's "candidates for speedy deletion?" Geogre 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fred, I want to say this with all due respect to your 30 yours of volunteer work reviewing and adjudicating the "worst and most intractable" disputes. It's a nasty job but somebody has to do it. I understand the argument that admin hours and editing hours are mutually exclusive. Some admins do little editing and some editors have no desire to do admin work. Some people do both and there is a continuing debate whether admins should also be good editors and do substantial editing work.
    But, here's what boggles my mind, how can you be an arbitrator and not know what criteria for speedy deletion and deletion review are? These are fundamental concepts of the deletion process which is a core Wikipedia process. Perhaps the acronyms didn't ring a bell so you didn't remember. Or, perhaps you feel that because you are an arbitrator, you need to stay out of AFD and DRV discussions to maintain objectivity?
    --Richard 16:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't know the jargon. No apologies for that. Please don't use it so much. I'm not the only one who gets lost in the alphabet soup. Fred Bauder 01:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC) See Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!. Fred Bauder 04:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, by the way, I think the "editors who don't contribute content should not be allowed to be admins" is a terrible policy idea although failure to show substantial experience in editing is a sine qua non for granting adminship in the first place. I would prefer either fixed terms (not necessarily term limits) or admin recall instead.
    --Richard 16:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tolerance and diversity and respect and a better Wikipedia are all tied together. No one should be insisting any volunteer spend their time by doing good thing A instead of good thing B. Some suggest useful new articles or other good ideas on talk pages. Some start articles as stubs. Some catagorize articles. Some wikify. Some add content to articles. Some source existing content. Some delete questionable content. Some fight the vandals. Some mediate. And so forth. Don't insist liver cells be heart cells too. WAS 4.250 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fred Bauder was admittedly "not aware" of User:Geogre's substantial contributions but chose to denigrate George nonetheless and taunt him as non-productive without bothering to look at who he was lambasting. Upon User:Bishonen pointing out that Geogre indeed has a corpus of work here that puts most of us to shame, Mr. Bauder never apologised and then continued to belittle us all in his next comments. Fred Bauder and James Forrester have acted horribly in this debate and their dismissive and snide attitude illustrate this fundamental "disconnect" between the article editors and the non-editing Admins. --Pewlosels 16:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh. I don't much care if Fred personally has heard of me or what I do, but I do think it's essential for anyone in any judicial portion to have as an utmost quality curiosity about the site. I don't want to indict him, even if I think he's made some terrible decisions, because terrible decisions go with insightful ones. People are people. However, I do think that people need to investigate, need to be curious, need to value the side they don't do as highly as the side they do. Geogre 16:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My lack of awareness is very simply explained. If I spend hours poring over the edits involved in arbitration cases the users I become familiar with are the users involved in those cases. I don't learn about the users who are busily editing and administering without being involved in the disputed matters that become arbitration cases. If I don't spend my time on the arbitration cases, I don't do a very good job, there is a big backlog and a feeling arises that the only way to solve a dispute is by main force. There is a very good reason I never heard of Geogre. He hasn't been making a lot of trouble, up to now anyway. I do edit some anyway and certainly don't hang out or IRC. I really don't think I'm a very good example of the problem Where I fall down is not doing anywhere near a normal share of administrative duties, or checkuser. I just don't have the time, unless I happen to be caught up, which is very rare. Fred Bauder 01:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I heard of Geogre due to the references to Geogre's Law (now I think Geogre's First Law) which was, if I recall aright, that any article on a person where the title is incorrectly capitalised is likely to be delete-worthy. It's a pretty good rule of thumb :-) (oh, are smileys banned as well?). Love the alphabet soup link, by the way. Guy 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh... maybe what we need is some sort of 'job rotation' program. Admins (or users in general) temporarily 'assigned' to work at various tasks to get a better idea of the 'regular players' in that arena and the difficulties involved. --CBD 11:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As had been stated here up above, I'm just not sure that's a good idea. As admins, we really are completely in control of what we want to do. It's a given fact that as you get more and more into admin stuff, you literally have less time to do anything else. My story is that I got too involved in admin stuff...it was effecting my personal life...so I backed off and started doing more "real" editing. But you know what? That's my choice. People like Fred have jobs on here that are much more complex than mine. He made a choice at some point that he wanted to do stuff like the arbcom. That's fine and that's his choice.
    One of the main problems I have with this "rotation" idea (and the idea that admins should be stripped of their powers a couple of months a year) is that admins are here for a reason. As Fred said, if he gets too involved in editing, then he falls behind in arbcom stuff and people complain and then he's really doing a disservice to the encyclopedia. Let's say we do this rotation idea or the idea that admins lose their power every 2 months. That would mean that about 1/6th of the admins (if not more) would be unavailable for a long period of time. Does anyone patrol any of our "backwater" admin pages? Can you imagine if we lost that many admins at once? I'm talking about requests for page protection, requested moves, personal intervention noticeboard and the like. It'd be chaos. We already have one hell of a time keeping up on those pages. I don't want to think of how bad it'd get with more admins.
    And the other major problem with these ideas is that forcing admins into roles like it is being proposed is going to be unworkable. It's almost impossible to "police" anything like that on here. Admins will find a way around it.
    So do I have an answer? No. :) I do agree that more admins need to edit. I just don't think that these are the answers. And btw, before anyone asks me, about 80% of my edits are non admin related. But again, that's my choice. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Woohookitty. Actually I wasn't really thinking of a 'forced' sort of thing and creating gaps in admin coverage and all that. More like admins voluntarily being moved around to cover each other's tasks for a short while... if 'Admin X' handles alot of speedy deletion requests and 'Admin Y' is currently creating stubs for every species of bat in existence (which I keep meaning to get back to) and they both 'signed up' to do rotations they might end up taking over for each other for a couple of weeks. Obviously it would have to be something the person can do (which would limit non-admin users to certain tasks) and in all probability they wouldn't be as good at it as the person who does so regularly, but while a bit odd it could serve as a way of breaking down barriers and getting people familiar with things they might never have looked into otherwise. They might even find they like some of them. Obviously 'ArbCom duties' wouldn't fit into this, but maybe someone could be assigned to do clerk work for a week or two while the arbitor was doing cleanup on WP:WP and thereby finding out what CSD, BLP, DRV, RfPP, PAIN, and the rest of the 'alphabet soup' were all about. :] --CBD 14:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I dunno. With all the grief we've had over admins who use their administrative powers in content disputes, maybe no one should both edit and adminstrate. At least not in the same article. --John Nagle 06:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As long as I can remember, Admins are at the least strongly discouraged from using their Admin powers in a conflict over an article. I think it has been proposed formally at least once as a guideline or rule, but it has never gained any serious support. And it doesn't take much thought to see that when an Admin protects the version she/he favors during an edit war, it merely wins a battle at the risk of losing the war. However, it might be interesting to see what happens if an Admin protects the version she/he doesn't favor. -- llywrch 19:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it is and has been policy for a long time that admins "must not" protect pages that they are involved in disputes over. See WP:PPol. --CBD 10:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Britain vs England

    Several dynamic IPs are making POV pushing edits (changing Britain to England) on several biographies of British celebrities including Keeley Hazell and The Stone Roses and many others (see history for both). Any suggestions to stop the vandalism?--Bonafide.hustla 01:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've come across this in articles about people who aren't even English at all. In some places England is used as a synonym for Great Britain or the UK. I'd try informing them about the difference first. - Mgm|(talk) 08:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This AMERICAN user is "POV pushing" himself constantly & isn't too hot on Geography either. Britain is an island, made up of 3 countries - England, Scotland & Wales. This user is a vandal aswell, who keeps posting pornographic images on articles. Mgm - check those 2 articles out, "Bonafide Hustler" is compromising the quality of the articles purely because he doesn't understand the terminology and is too arrogant to face facts. He seems to be under the illusion Manchester isn't in England (it definitely is), nor is London (again, it definitely is). TJFillow 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If this was one of those tedious things where someone was insisting on changing United Kingdom to England, Scotland or whereever, I'd be on Bonafide.hustla's side. But as the anon points out in one of the edit summaries, Britain is not a country. It's occasionally used as sloppy shorthand for the UK (a state which includes areas which aren't in Great Britain). England is a country, it's not (currently) a state. "Britain" is neither. --ajn (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While it may be pedantic to change the UK to England, Scotland or Wales - it is actually more accurate and conveys more information to the reader and it is even more pedantic to revert such a change back to the UK, especially when the person reverting it back doesn't understand the terminology themselves. I would put money on the fact that "Bonafide Hustler" wouldn't change "Glasgow, Scotland" to "Glasgow, United Kingdom", or state in an article that Dundee is in "Britain" and not Scotland. TJFillow 15:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In some circumstances it's more accurate, in some circumstances it's not, and in some circumstances it's not worth bothering about. Why stop at separating Scots, Welsh and English when you could categorise by county, town or street? Why are the Stone Roses from England rather than from Manchester or the UK? They are from all three, of course, but why is the stateless country more important than the state or the home town? --ajn (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm, new user vs. established editor. Troll, anyone? – Chacor 16:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    TJFillow hasn't made any edits except posting on this discussion on AN/I. It's pretty obvious that he's a troll and shouldn't be taken seriously. His accusations are groundless and unjustified. The problem here is that some unregistered editors (supposedly Scottish, Welsh, or Irish nationalists) tried to separate themselves from the "United Kingdom" by changing the location information of biographies to England, Scotland, etc. Thus, creating a false interpretation that England, Scotland, Wales are separate nations. TJFillow's comment in this case, seems to be nothing but bootless wikilawyering.--Bonafide.hustla 00:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    England, Scotland and Wales are separate nations (see this, for example, or UK government websites which routinely describe England, Scotland and Wales as nations). They are part of the same state. As per your talk page, I'd advise you to stop trying to make changes in this area. Irish nationalists have been fairly successful in separating themselves from the UK, by the way. --ajn (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No one is denying the fact that Manchester and London are in England; however, they are all part of the United Kingdom (which control Great Britain and Northern Ireland). In addition, I did not upload any pornographic contents to the site and note that wikipedia is NOT censored. Please understand the policy here before making unjust accusations. Comment on content not contributors.--Bonafide.hustla 00:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    user KrishnaVindaloo

    The user KrishnaVindaloo (talk • contribs) isn't playing real nice at the vitalism page. anyone want to check his patterns? and take action, if necessary. I don't consider his editing as a contribution the health and spirit of wikipedia. --RealDefender 06:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cursory examination doesn't reveal anything untoward in this user's edits. Care to be more specific? - brenneman {L} 08:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This [5] is clearly unacceptable, adding the dominant scientific point of view into an article by reference to a Nobel laureate. Shouldn't be allowed. Guy 13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a very good edit, no, but the big picture looks a bit different to me, Guy. KrishnaVindaloo is perhaps expressing understandable frustration with the argumentative POV which I notice holds this article hostage. A frustration which I see he has properly explained on the talkpage, only to have it rudely dismissed. RealDefender, you seem strikingly knowledgeable about the nooks and crannies and jargon of Wikipedia, for somebody making his seventh edit ever.[6] (Click on that, dear reader, the edit summaries are interesting in themselves.) Please remember the basic rule of the encyclopedia, RealDefender: Wikipedia:consensus doesn't trump WP:NPOV. I think I'll put Vitalism on my watchlist, and I hope a few others here do the same. Bishonen | talk 15:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Sadly, I'm not sure you see things as they really are. I'm hardly and expert on Vitalism (and hence don't edit the article itself), but I do note that KV's rewording of cited information tends to distort, change, alter, misrepresent (you pick a word) the information, and that he does in fact have a specific POV that he tendentiously pushes. I would suggest that you look at the corpus of his work, including the Pseudoscience article (especially his dogged determination to insert chiropractic anywhere and everywhere (yet another subject I have no real opinion about) before wading into the fray. I doubt that some of the other editors there (i.e., not those currently involved in vitalism) can be accused of having a POV.
    The alternative of course, is that all of us who have found KV's edits to be tendentious and POV are wrong. Is it possible? I suppose. Is it likely? No.
    Finally, if you're going to put Vitalism on your watchlist (which would be a wise decision), I'd suggest that you do so with an eye toward mediation. Thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm slightly (hah!) at loss about the attrition warfare holding Pseudoscience and Vitalism in its grip. I asked at Talk:Vitalism#I'm_lost but didn't get much enlightment out of the answers. My beta hypothesis is, that both sides aren't helpfull now, as they are lost in their dispute. --Pjacobi 10:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Its pretty simple really. Chiropractors don't want the majority view shown on the pseudoscience article (chiropractic theory is pseudoscientific). They made a big deal about it and called me a pathalogical liar on the PS page. When I suggested RfC they backed off. I calmed things down by not presenting the majority view on chiropractic theory on the PS article. I went to the vitalism article to put it straight. Gleng turned up and added defensive OR about chiropractors no longer believing in pseudoscientific vitalistic ideas. I added nothing about chiropractic, just corrected his OR. Gleng (with the abusive support of other chiropractic supporters) added lots of testimonial-like and OR stuff about vitalims coming back into fashion. I have been trying to put it all into majority-minority-fringe proportion. Any help from impartial outsiders is welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 11:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd take on events, KV. Odd, too that you're the only one who sees it that way. Whatever. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't dismiss KV's version out of hand. But can't all that chiropractor nonsense be handled at chiropractor, to avoid stalemating Pseudoscience and Vitalism for this dispue? Outside of the US, there's nobody really interested in chiropractors anyway. --Pjacobi 14:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Pjacobi. Good suggestion. I just implemented it. With the abusive chiropractors off our backs we will have a better chance of improving the vitalism article and keeping the OR away. KrishnaVindaloo 02:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the actual dispute,I haven't looked into it, but at least in Belgium, people are also interested in chiropractors (see e.g. the 12,800 Google hits for "chiropractor" from Belgian sites[7]. Fram 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just chiropractic. Many schools are practicing holism and vitalism. They are concepts that many professions have been using since the beginning of medicine. The trends show that it is only expected to grow, and eventually penetrate every aspect of medical model in the next era. --RealDefender 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    The heat about chiropractic arose from KVs insistence in declaring that chiropractic was pseudoscientific because it was used to cure homosexuality. That was met with utter bemusement, expressed buy one chiro as "Why would anybody want to cure homosexuality" and was just a bridge of denigration too far. The storm was only broken when an editor actually wrote to the author of the cited article to find out what he actually said, and printed the author's bemused (outraged) response. KV then declared he really meant to cite another paper, which turns out to be in a Society newsletter written by a private sex counsellor (though nobody actually seems to have seen the original either except KV as the issue is missing from the Society archive).

    KV also tried to make the argument (on pseudoscience) that chiropractic involved a vitalist principle, vitalism was pseudoscience, therefore chiro was pseudoscience. It doidn't wash for many reasons, one of which was that the vitalism neither mentioned chiro nor did it declare that vitalism was pseudoscience, and no V RS could be found.

    KV tried then to export his views on chiropractic and pseudoscience to the vitalism page. Here I got involved, because reading the vitalism article I recognised that it had virtually no sources and fom what I knew was almost entirely wrong (regardless of chiro/PS). My edits there were interpreted by KV as POV pushing. His I didn't interpret as anything very much because it turned into repeated efforts to a) track down his references b) read them c) display on the Talk page that they didn;'t say what KV had claimed they said (in some cases they said the opposite).

    What is not funny is the way that throughout, KV has attacked the motives of every editor who disagrees with his edits, labelling them (not their edits, them personally) as biased, motivated by POV, not legitimate, in a conspiracy, pseudoscientific..... this is not funny, and I will not stay on WP if WP cannot stop this type of personal attack on editors integrity.

    KV will certainly and rightly note that I have attacked dishonest editing, and expressed outrage in particular at the issue related to his miscitation of Ford; I found it, simply, saddening.Gleng 16:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And why in the hell is this a matter for WP:ANI?!? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)

    Gleng. I have made no personal attacks on anyone on any article. I have been on the receiving end of personal attacks (pathalogical liar[8]) incivility[9], racist slur (mahatma)[10], and other such censorship motivated attacks. Chiropractic is used to treat homosexuality. I have presented reliable peer reviewed articles that show this very clearly. I did confuse the authors and corrected myself. Then, despite my clear explanations, you and other chiropractic pushers repeatedly called me a liar. In order to appease the more convicted chiropractors, I did not place the supported fact in the PS article. I apologised for confusing the authors, Ford and Christianson. No apology was forthcoming from those chiropractic supporters who attacked me with accusations of "pathalogical liar". None! I calmed things down further by applying for a wikiquet alert and outside comment. I then went to the vitalism article to remove OR about PS notions of vitalism being scientific. You then followed me there and started placing OR about chiropractic[11] (I never added anything about chiropractic there at all). When I corrected your OR (about chiros not believing in vitalistic innate any more) I got more abuse from you and the other chiropractic supporters. Your edits have been weighted extremely in favour of your promotion towards chiropractic. Your promotion of fringe has been extreme. Literature supported corrections on your OR have induced you towards abuse. You have encouraged it from other followers. Consensus does not trump NPOV. KrishnaVindaloo 02:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence: Here is the reference that shows that I am telling the truth. It states clearly that chiropractic is used for reparative therapy (treating homosexuality). A Re-emergence of Reparative Therapy. By: Christianson, Alice. Contemporary Sexuality, Oct2005, Vol. 39 Issue 10, p8-17, 10p; (AN 18639497). That is a pseudoscientific application of chiropractic, which has only minor sci support for the treatment of some back conditions. No messing around with google searches. Academic premier database has Contemporary Sexuality listed as a peer reviewed journal publication, and the sub-title reads "a peer reviewed publication for contemporary sexuality readers". It mentions Ford, (The Pseudoscience of Reparative Therapy). It fits NPOV policy on reliability and verifiability. However, in verifying the fact that my edits were truthful, Gleng will also be also be verifying that chiropractic is used to treat homosexuality. So Gleng's accusations of dishonesty continue. KrishnaVindaloo 04:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) adding uncivil warning to user pages

    I apologize. I listed this on the wrong board As a member of the Good Articles project, I left a notice on several current articles of a change in the good article criteria regarding the mandatory use of in-line citations and enhance attention to WP:V. A copy of what this notice is can be found here. Being the Good Article project, we obviously want articles to stay as GA and as such the notice was meant to make the editors aware of this change and possible improve the article prior to a reviewer coming and de-listing it. The User ScienceApologist has responded to this notice in a rather uncivil way, including adding a warning to my talk page about "hurting wikipedia". My first suspicion was that he simply misinterpreted the notice of a pending review as a review in itself and I sought to clarify that it wasn't. I even requested that he voluntarily remove the "warning" he placed on my page, however at this moment he hasn't. At this point, I am choosing to walk away from dealing with this user rather then contribute to the fair and possible become uncivil myself. I would, however, like an admin to consider this matter and remove the warning from my talk page and possibly give ScienceApologist a warning for being uncivil. His actions are rather counterproductive in building a quality encyclopedia. Thank you for your timeAgne 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update. SA has removed the warning but I still would like some admin eyes on the matter, particularly if I acted inappropriatly-please let me know. Agne 18:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This arises from you disputing Good Article's status, right? Your's is an objection no one seems to agree with looking at that page. You seem to being taking discussion there personally; don't. I don't see the issue here. FeloniousMonk 18:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What's happened is that the Good Article criteria has changed recently, so users like Agne have been going around warning articles which don't comply with the new criteria, namely that in addition to being well-referenced, an article must have inline citations. So for instance, if you had an article which listed 25 books at the bottom and had no inline citations, its good article status would be forfeit, how is anybody supposed to know the article actually used those books as references or just pasted them on to make it look more authoritative? But anyway, Agne seems to of been warning a few articles which SA patrols, and SA seems to think Agne is just randomly complaining about articles or something, and it turned into an argument. Homestarmy 18:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting an uncivil (and frankly unfounded) warning on a users page is personal. As I explained to him, my role was a messenger in giving a notice of recent changes and a pending review. His accusations of being "vague" seemed to insinuate that he was interpreting the notice as being a review. Despite my attempts at clarifying this, he continues to accuse me of doing damage to the Wikipedia project with imprecise criticisms. The notice above linked to what the Good Article criteria was, where the change in criteria was discussed and more importantly pointed to expectations of WP:V and WP:CITE that the article will be held to for GA consideration. That was not vague and because I did not go through each and every article to give a full review prior to giving notice of an upcoming full review, does not mean I deserve such uncivil treatment from another editor. I took good faith that it was just a misunderstanding at first on his part but unfortunately, while grateful that he took down the warning, he is being persistant in my "damaging vagueness". Agne 18:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the idea about the necessity of in-line cites (even for textbook science, that's the point) is just plain stupid. Being attacked as a messenger can be prevented by not acting as messenger for stupid ideas.
    See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Physics#Another_reason, why Wikipedia sucks, Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#When not to cite.
    Pjacobi 18:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is faulty logic that goes against WP:AGF and WP:NPA. If you disagree with the content/messenge then you are free to discuss the merit of said content. However, it is never appropriate to "attack the messenger". That is the line that I believe SA crossed. Agne 19:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know which article this is about, but Agne stirred up a reaction in Mathematics too. While some of us are happy to improve the article, one week is a ridiculously short time to meet the changed guidelines. We have taken months just to get the first paragraph right, and the subject is deep and wide ranging, involving many editors. Our aim is to reach FA status, but a year is a more realistic timetable. So perhaps the message to take back to the GA people is that giving more notice would be more productive. Stephen B Streater 19:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then take it back yourself, and be civil about it. There is no excuse for anyone to be attacking Agne here. --InShaneee 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    But Agne has been tagging articles that have inline citations! For example, Hubble's law has inline citations. Metric expansion of space has inline citations. So I fail to see what criteria Agne is using for tagging the articles. I think it's one she made up. --ScienceApologist 20:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Your first example only has 2 inline citations in the entire body. That is kind of lacking, perhaps in that case its meant to encourage more inline citations. Most major pieces of information should be cited. --NuclearUmpf 20:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    2 inline citations is more than zero and the criterion doesn't state anything about a minimum number. Nevertheless it was stated as unequivocal fact in the post that the article would be delisted according to criterion 2b even though that clearly would be debatable. Inline referencing to common knowledge facts in science articles is actually not the best editorial practice according to most science editors here (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics). I find counting the number of references in an article and making blanket statements about article quality to be not only small-minded but nearly insulting to editors who may have thought very hard about what facts should be inline referenced. There is no discusion of what facts the editors want to reference, only a blanket statement that "2 is not enough". I, for one, think that kind of rhetoric is very unhelpful to the Wikipedia project. --ScienceApologist 20:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made a request regarding this issue here. --ScienceApologist 21:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't people focus on reviewing the backlog of articles that are waiting? Surely this would be more productive.

    Look, I'm sorry but instead of removing decent articles from the GA list, people should be working on evaluating the ones that are already waiting. There is a huge backlog of articles that need to be reviewed. It would make much more sense to get that done and then go back and nitpick about how many citations an older article needs and if 2+2=4 needs a citation. The whole delisting movement has its priorties backwards and has come under the influence of the insane citation police. It is much more damaging to leave decent articles languishing than to have a fight about citing basic laws of mathematics. pschemp | talk 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh? We have backlogs??? ;) Glen 22:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Citations=good. Harrassment over citations !=good. I generally agree with pschemp, and further suggest that if an article has been "good" for months, it didn't suddenly become "ungood" overnight. Take it easy, please. Thatcher131 21:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that many of the articles being delisted don't have to do with just the inline citations requirement, many of them are just plain not well-referenced, and many of the older ones especially are really quite bad articles overall. Homestarmy 21:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what GA review is for. Warning people that articles may or may not be "not well-referenced" is a subjective discussion that is best left to the actual review process. The warning seems to function more like a harrassment over someone's opinion about what constitutes a "well-referenced article" rather than any sort of straightforward evaluation. You alone, Homestarmy, are not supposed to unilaterally declare an article "quite bad overall" without proper review. --ScienceApologist 22:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Homey, note that I didn't say don't review articles. What I'm suggesting is that we deal with the current nominations, under the current rules first, then go back and review. That is a much more productive use of people's time. pschemp | talk 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This has now left the scope of WP:ANI and is quickly degenerating into lame harping. Cut it out. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Harrassment over citations !=good. Notification of citation requirements !=Harrassment. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The two examples given above are are to poorly cited articles, that should not be GAs - it should be abundantly clear that two inline citations are not adequate for either. Yes, an article can be GA today, and not tomorrow, because the GA process is flawed. Anyone can promote an article to GA, so it means little, particularly if GA can't be removed as easily as it is bestowed. Bludgeoning an editor who calls for better inline citations does not bode well for building a better encyclopedia. Sandy 03:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like SA has removed the material that caused offence. Shouldn't that be the end of it? I know he can be blunt, perhaps overly blunt at times, but by removing the warning he showed he is big enough to admit he was wrong to say what he did, regardless of different views about the actual merits of the articles. All the rest of this discussion is about how the GA project should work, which is not appropriate for discussion here. I don't see anything for admins to do at this point. Metamagician3000 02:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Need Advice

    I am almost on the verge on an edit war with another user over Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani, he has added information about a person named Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani and stated his reason for doing so is because the US government probably arrested the first person because they thought he was the second. I asked for a source and his reply was that Arab names are hard to illiterate and so they probably made a mistake. I kept removing the information asking for a second source, if he just made up this connection or if anyone has made this link before. He has yet to provide one and instead simpyl reverts. The article itself is up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muhamad_Naji_Subhi_Al_Juhani on the basis that it lacks information and it seems this is an attempt to add fluff to the article, if you read the article the link isnt even asserted, there is just a splatter of information on the second person inserted into the middle of the article, no explanation no link at all. Is this vandalism? is this against "Wikipedia: No original research"? Am I wrong to keep removing it? This user is adamant that this information is to stay. What option do I have other then reverting? --NuclearUmpf 19:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I came across this comment from NuclearUmpf, when another user said he "changed his vote" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani, after NuclearUmpf left this message on his talk page. I've got several problems with this. The most important are:
    1. NuclearUmpf is mischaracterizing what I said, both in User Talk:Kappa and here.
    2. NuclearUmpf doesn't appear to be really reading what I actually write. He hasn't been responding to the points I bring up while attempting to discuss the issue with him in a civil fashion.
    3. NuclearUmpf points out that the article has been nominated for deletion. But he doesn't acknowledge that he is the one who nominated it.
    I think that NuclearUmpf should try harder to have a civil discussion of his concerns back on Talk:Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani, or reasonable equivalent.
    I have urged NuclearUmpf to assume good faith, and be more collegial. And, I think if I was a third party, that would be my advice here. -- Geo Swan 18:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    [12] "I don't think you understand. It doesn't matter whether they are the same person. I didn't assert they are the same person" If you arent asserting they are, and noone else is, why is it in the article? --NuclearUmpf 18:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to repeat myself, NuclearUmpf. I think that your concerns would be more appropriately discussed on Talk:Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani, or reasonable equivalent. -- Geo Swan 06:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a source supporting these two people are the same? Can I get some admin intervention as you can see Geo Swan refuses to comply with WP:NOR he is putting FBI terrorist photo's on the page of a man that has not been found guilty of any crime. He is drawing his own link in violation of our policies here, its almost disturbing. I am starting to wonder if Geo Swan thinks he is allowed to go out and do his own research. --NuclearUmpf 10:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is beyond the scope of the talk page as you are unwilling to budge on what you are doing, breaking WP:NOR. I am asking for admin intervention before this becomes an edit war. You have stated these people are unrelated and have not shown that anyone was confused over who they are. Its almost a stereotype that you would assume that people with the same last name and name Muhammed that are arabic in decent would be confused with eachother ... You have not shown anyone citing confusion over these people, anyone alleging they are the same person, just your own research that says Saudi's went to Guantanamo before (no proof) Arab names are hard to illiterate (dont see connection as the names are far different) So the Saudi's must obviously be confused on who he is (where is the connection here). YOu have shown no sources yet still edit war. --NuclearUmpf 13:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anti-Americanism?

    It is not clear to me why one administrator, Sarah Ewart, has created so much red tape over one short article. It appears as if she has intentionally complicated things. The subject I wrote about is published and very well known in the engineering field. She is identified on numerous webpages and websites. Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia. There are numerous living and accomplished people from all over the world who are listed in Wikipedia. The subject of the article I submitted represents one of millions of these people. What is it about the subject that is causing problems for Ms Ewart and the team of administrators she has rounded up to review this... or maybe there are other elements that I need to now consider? Please let me know because her actions are truly inappropriate. I am trying to work with her, follow her suggestions, identify why the subject is important and noble, and yet she seems to escalate things without resolving them. She indicated that she now requires the advice of her peers when she abruptly locked and deleted the article. This demonstrates that she may not be qualified to be an administrator, let alone, a volunteer. In fact, it shows that she may have reacted too quickly and harshly in response to my earlier emails (in capital letters) and my lack of experience navigating the online communication of Wikipedia. The fact that she also called upon and identified an American and an engineer to further review my article demonstrates concern about anti-Americanism because the subject is an American. This was not an issue until she raised it and allied with Guinnog, another non-American administrator. Should I now be concerned that Ms Ewart and her administrator friends will go on a speedy deletion spree and remove every one or more of my contributions that I volunteered and spent countless hours on? Will I now face bans or scrutiny on Wikepedia? These are legitimate concerns that warrant formal complaints. Furthermore, I am amazed by the camaraderie among the network of administrators. I am posting this complaint because I cannot seem to get one impartial administrator (who is not associated with Ms Ewart and Guinnog) to respond to my request for a complaint on my talk page and for a resolution of this problem Ms Ewart created. This is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is a wonderful tool. Such administrators should not ruin it for the rest of us. Administrators need to respect all people- including Americans- who freely contribute to Wikipedia. We are *all* volunteers.

    Hence I seek an immediate resolution and an opportunity to have my article unlocked and re-posted at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYer (talk • contribs)

    Please see Wikipedia's policies on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:N Naconkantari 23:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It would help if you would say what the article is (admins can view deleted articles). I have read the messages on your talk page, and it seems the article has been deleted by three different admins so far as not meeting wikipedia requirements. There is are also considerable efforts on your talk page to help you by Sarah Ewart and Guinnog and I don't see anything at all to complain about in their conduct. I suggest you AGF and work with them. Tyrenius 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't tried to work with us. You have made demand after demand and refused to listen to any advice, evidenced here.
    I asked for further input and review because of your behaviour and your insistence that User:Guinnog, User:Centrx, User:Joelr31 and myself are all wrong about the article. I think being open to the opinions of other administrators is a good thing.
    I went to school in the US, have family still there and anyone accusing me of anti-Americanism is simply sensationalizing. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming that the article is Sandy Straus, which can be viewed at google's cache [13] if anyone without the mop is curious. And yes, it's pure vanity. --EngineerScotty 23:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was created by User:Sandystraus and now User:NYer wants it restored? Are they the same person? Joelito (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know, but if you read User talk:NYer, you'll see that it is Sandy Straus whom is being discussed. BTW, User:Sandystraus has been a busy little vanity-beaver; there also exist the following articles:
    1. Dynamic Vision Assessment for Transportation
    2. Automated Driver's License Test
    3. Dynamic Assessment for Transportation
    4. Vision Assessment Procedure for Transportation
    5. Straus Pavement Damage Estimate
    Some of these may be salvageable, encyclopedic topics if rewritten to be NPOV, V, and free of OR; as it stands the whole pile of them are pure sandy-love. They may not be speediable as blatant copyvios as was Sandy Straus, but as they are; I'm going to send the whole pile of them to AFD. --EngineerScotty 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User should have an explanation and warning about sockpuppetry, remembering BITE though. Tyrenius 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There are a few more articles (and numerous redirects) created by Sandystraus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the past day or so; including numerous redirects to the above, and at least one soft "see also" redirect to the above. Also, Ms. Straus appears to have uploaded some nature images such as Image:Skink.JPG, which contain references to her business (ESRA) in the upload summaries. This might be kosher, I suppose--the images are released under the CC attribution license--but it's an interesting way to spam the wiki. --EngineerScotty 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have deleted a posting made here by User:NYer because it included the full name and place of residence of another User. I have warned NYer about stalking. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh. And some thinly veiled legal threats as well. I'd encourage Sandy Strauss and putative pals to examine WP:NLT; legal threats put you on the short path to the exit here. William Pietri 17:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have warned User:NYer about the rather nasty personal attacks he/she has been making. I agree that these articles are of marginal notability at best and should all be subject to an AfD, which I'm glad to see Engineer Scotty has started. I think there are grounds for asking both User:SandyStrauss and the self-admitted meatpuppet User:NYer to take a break from editing Wikipedia. They have displayed a consistent inability to work with other members of the community, understand the basic rules of Wikipedia or to conduct themselves in a civil manner. Unfounded accusations of anti-Americanism and bullying have no place here, and are seriously disrupting Wikipedia and wasting everyone's time. Gwernol 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NYer is almost certainly Sandystraus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy 11:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, Guy. They have the same IP (they've both sent me demanding emails). Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NYer and SandyStrauss have the same IP because they probably share computers or networks in the offices. They are not the same person because I know of both. So it is astounding that everyone seems to be attacking them. So maybe one of you should try to work with them and put an end to this? It is possible they did not know the rules of Wikepedia. I certainly do not. Most people on Wikepedia probably do not know these rules. Has anyone thought of a nicer way to diffuse this matter?JPeter2 16:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We have "two" users making threats, personal attacks and accusing a well-respected member of the community of being anti-American for not allowing "them" to post their vanity pieces, and yet it's us that are being unreasonable? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm talking crazy here, but wouldn't the simple solution be for them to ask, rather than making bold and apparently unfounded accusations? I'd encourage them to start with Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and then move on to WP:SPA, WP:AUTO, and WP:VAIN. William Pietri 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, if we were to have an article called Sandy Strauss, it should probably be on this artist, rather than the self-promoting inventor and "authoress" of technical papers currently under discussion. William Pietri 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Zoe, calm down. There are no threats or personal attacks on anyone. You might know of some useful ways to help people on Wikipedia rather than waste time arguing. Answer the question instead: What can you do to nicely diffuse this matter?JPeter2 17:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see she has been phoning User:EngineerScotty on the matter ([14]). A nicer way to defuse the matter might be if she accepted our policies on verifiability and refrained from vandalising this discussion which she started. --Guinnog 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Guinnog, I checked what you said and it seems that the IP is banned so any user would use a telephone if no other contact information is provided. That seems rather logical. I think the issue is with NYer who seems to have started this discussion. Not Strauss. This seems like a no-brainer to me, especially when IPs and computers are shared all of the time. (All computer savvy people know this.) The right thing to do is to lift whatever IP bans were put up and communicate directly with Strauss. I know I would certainly be upset enough to telephone EngineerScotty too if anyone anywhere wrote what he did about Strauss. He could have made his point directing it at NYer rather than Strauss. He did not need to totally identify and completely itemize everything associated with Strauss if he wanted to take issue with NYer. This is crystal clear, even if Strauss originally authored her own bio. Lots of people do it on Wikepedia or have others they know write it for them. You need to stop whining and work with others in a positive and productive way. You can't deny it or stop this type of bio writing. You can police it but how many of you are out there to police this? So what if two users made some mistakes by not reviewing or knowing all of the Wikepedia rules? So what? I am sure it took a long time to learn the ropes on Wikepedia. I don't see where Strauss and NYer were frequent or long-time users of Wikepedia. NYer seems to have just joined. Right? Strauss contributed a few articles and pics. Big deal. Then again, who cares? Do anyone of you get rewarded for any of this information? Stop wasting time and start helping people on this thing. Stop talking and start working. Do something positive. Make a difference. Now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JPeter2 (talk • contribs) .
    If you don't think its very important, why are you and your colleagues spending so much time and investing so much invective in pursuing this? A number of editors with long histories of making substantial and positive contributions to Wikipedia are being attacked without basis and in the most personal and vicious ways by Strauss and her cohorts, yourself included. Screaming "anti-American" and "bully" at every turn rather than trying to work with other editors is not making you any friends. Sarah Ewart and Guinnog went out of their way to explain the way Wikipedia works, and got hate-filled accusations thrown at them. Are you surprised that this was not welcomed with open arms? Try making any single contribution to the encyclopedia yourself before throwing around accusations about making a "positive difference". You have made none.
    On a technical note: User:EngineerScotty can be contacted by email even from a blocked IP address, so the claim that a telephone call was the only way to contact that user is, like so many of your wild claims and accusations, simply incorrect. Gwernol 17:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling someone anti-American is a personal attack. Posting personal identifying information about someone is a personal attack. The nicest way to defuse (or diffuse) the situation would be for the people trying to post vanity information to understand our guidelines at WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO and WP:BIO and see if they're violating those. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zoe, this is old hat already about the anti-Americanism stuff. It is also an issue with NYer since he started this discussion. Thanks for the response though. I think that what you said needs to go directly to the two users and any others you find in the same boat. JPeter2 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have another question for all of you: This issue of privacy seemed a wee bit wobbly (if I may say that). Each of you except two women (Strauss and Ewart) seem to have aliases. Why not use aliases to protect their identities? This only seems fair. NYer should never have used Ewart's name but maybe there was no alias. Strauss seems to be an innocent victim here (apart from making the terrible mistake of writing an autobio and the having a colleague post it). Why not remove names of both ladies and refer to them under aliases? Each of you seems to have an alias on this and I think it is the right thing to do to help these ladies. Let's all pitch in to patch things up. JPeter2 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, these socks are getting tiresome. If I wanted to be referred to by an alias, I would use an alias. I cannot understand why you keep adding to this thread, stating your name numerous times, and then emailing me repeatedly demanding I delete it because "mentioning of [your] name" is not permitted. You say you feel stalked by various people here, imagine how you'd feel if people started calling you at home! It's completely unacceptable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry, Sarah, but I only noticed this now. Judging by your reply, it seems that this was probably asked before. It just seems so logical that almost everyone on this thing has an alias. So you may not mind having your name referred to but maybe others do. About the home calls, all I can infer from this is that Strauss was unable to reach EngineerScotty. Not everyone knows how to send emails through Wikipedia, especially when there are obstacles to navigating through the site. The fact that many of you know shows that you have experience that others on Wikipedia do not. I agree with you though. These threads are getting tiresome. Rather than continue to discuss Strauss and NYer, why not try to work with one or both of them now? (I'm starting to feel like a moderator or advocate now but I am not.) Or end this thread or case? (If there is such a thing.) That seems like the right thing to do rather than to waste so much time digging up old news, old accusations, files, and defenses. Why is there such a need for each of you to continue to defend your actions? It's over. Just do something positive and help people on this thing already. Why is that so difficult? It's the right thing to do on and off Wikepedia. JPeter2 19:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, please, settle on one account and stop creating new socks. If you don't want to be known by your real name, then don't sign up for an account in that name. It's not that hard. As for Scott, you went off and looked up his phone number and then tried to call him. He did not give you his number or consent to you calling him. What you did was completely inappropriate, whether you can see that or not. Agreed, not everyone knows how to send emails through Wikipedia, but you sure don't have that problem. You've sent me numerous harassing emails containing defamatory imputations against me, Zoe and Scott, emails to the board, the foundation...you don't have a problem with your ability to send emails. Please stop this behaviour, it is enough already. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I vote to have all names of businesses, business owners, and products deleted at once so that we do not promote the very people and things that we define as wikispam. This should be a very easy and quick task for any administrator to undertake now and within this article because we are definitely promoting several products and businesses and business owners here whether or not any one of the authors realizes this. Any names identified in this article, "anti-americanism" appear in search engines and generate interest in businesses, products, and peoples. It is to the benefit of the very people we do not want on this website. WikiklEnr 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked this newcomer for trolling and for vandalizing this discussion. See WikiklEnr (talk · contribs) for his "contributions". User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, so you want to remove all names off businesses? How are you going to have information about Enron? Or Microsoft? Or MCI? Or about all those characters at HP and their recent antics to control people's lives? Certainly a bad idea to have the name of, say, the American Cancer Society (they are an incorporation after all). Would anyone in government, say Al Gore, who takes a position in Business be deleted from the Wikipedia? Have any of you actually read any of the previous nonsense in this discussion? It reads like a bunch of Narcissistic ADHD children. Information is being shared and all you want to do is go on a witch hunt against each other? Huh? Take a deep breath. Exhale. Another breath - longer this time. Exhale. Now ... Think about the concept of sharing information. Now think about the wiki being for that purpose. Now think about the deletion of such material. Makes no sense. And what's this using a wiki page as a threaded discussion; someone write an extension that makes sense with automatic dates, threading, etc.

    The above was posted by 70.195.250.239 (talk • contribs). User:Zoe|(talk) 02:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have spoken with Sandy Straus extensively on the phone yesterday. Given her attitude towarrd using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, her suggestions that this discussion was a "hate crime," her use of meat puppets after she was warned that this is unacceptable, her calling of an admin at his home, and her utter disregard for the norms of our project, she, NYer, and JPeter2 should be banned indefinitely. I have already done so with JPeter2. Furthermore, her request that her user name be changed so as too protect her reputation was and should continue to be rejected. We do not reward spammers by changing their user names to make it easier for them to strike again. My suggestion is that all contributions by them, including innocuous ones in which their company name appears, be removed from Wikipedia. Let's not open the door to yet another subtle form of advertising. Danny 12:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon

    Dear Sirs,

    I got a message for my wikapedia that they thought i was vandalizing. However it was an experiment and i further read after i recieved your message. Our professor dropped a groups presentation grade because of citing wikepedia because the site can be changed. I was experimenting with the nonsense page on feces to see how long the content was aloud to stay. As i read on it was only aloud to stay to view for 5 minutes. I do not know much more other than your comments on stating it cannot be guaranteed for it content. I myself use it to look up words and appriciate it. When i asked the teacher again today he said he does use it but tries to use it as a spring board and then research on for reputable sites. Sorry for the inconvienience this may have caused you. As a college student i know i should have read first but i am extremely busy. Thanks and sorry again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.64.21.185 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    Blocking Google Web Accelerator

    Hi everyone, I'm starting to see more and more unblock requests coming in for autoblocks from IP addresses in the 64.233.172.0/24 range as it seems like a few vandals have started abusing Google Web Accelerator as an open proxy. However, there are also innocent users using it as well. A block of the vandal Xdrakemanx led to 5 autoblocks and innocent person being suspected as a sockpuppet as well. So does anyone think we should treat Google Web Accelerator as an open-proxy and block it down for good? I can foresee a lot of future pain dealing with puppeteers who'll abuse it too. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Uhm, I thought we were allowing access from proxies that support X-Forwarded-For? --FOo 07:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If we know that the XFF information is reliable. --Carnildo 07:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware that we had XFF support up and running -- hence the whole AOL blocking farce we have these days. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do AOL proxies really support X-Forwarded-For? From the data I have, it looks like they only include a Via header, but not XFF. But I haven't looked at this exhaustively; I'm just pulling AOL-ish lines from my logs, like 207.200.116.14 or 64.12.116.139. William Pietri 14:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    AOL is one of the cases where XFF information isn't reliable. Sometimes it works, sometimes it just gives the proxy. --Carnildo 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ick. How reliable is XFF for Google Web Accelerator? --FOo 02:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I use GWA (though have disabled it for Wikipedia and other sensitive accounts) and encourage affected users to see the talkpage Wikipedia talk:Autoblock. Perhaps a Google Web Accelerator specific message could be added to the autoblock template? It's not a terribly big deal to disable it for Wikipedia, especially as after the first loading it's rather image-light. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to propose that we rangeblock all known IP addresses used by Google Web Accelerator because it is in effect, an open proxy. There's been a noticeable increase of unblock requests over the last week coming from people who've been autoblocked for vandalism by accounts using the accelerator. I've started a page at Wikipedia:Advice to Google Web Accelerator users (WP:GWA) which I hope to add screenshots and instructions detailing how users can exclude wikipedia.org from their accelerator settings soon. Perhaps we can use a link to this webpage as the block message? --  Netsnipe  ►  07:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC) cross-post: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_on_open_proxies#Google_Web_Accelerator.[reply]

    The thing is it isnt an open proxy. In fact many sites seem to disregards use completely and show the users real IP. http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/aboutyou.ch for example, when using GWA, shows Googles IP in the first section thus registers GWA as being in use, but states my real IP under real IP, with my real country and says no open proxy used. What are they doing that we arent? Glen 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked that page using GWA and the XFF info is correct: It shows my normal home IP addy. It'd be preferable to use GWA's XFF ip when selecting the ip-edited-from for a user. GWA, while annoying at times, isn't a simple open proxy, nor does it perform anonymizing services: It's designed to accelerate your internet connection. I imagine the best solutions would be either 1) allow passing of Google's XFF to Wikipedia (the devs would have to handle this) or 2) block all GWA IP ranges, preferably with very large and obvious note explaining why, pointing out the security vulnerabilities, and explaining how to disable GWA for Wikipedia. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Another Vandal Account

    Another vandal account Michael0 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) today got 8 users on 72.14.192.48 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) autoblocked today. And I think the collateral damage got so bad that NawlinWiki had to relift his indefinite block on Michael0. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    First, I'd like to say that this post wasn't my idea (blame Nicolas Mimsy Porpington Nichola Mimsy Propington some guy), but I'm doing it anyways. [Oh, just call him Nearly Headless Nick. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 00:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)][reply]

    Swedenborg (talk · contribs), who has spent the last year trying to promote a non-notable (and possibly non-existent) NGO calling itself the Global Resource Bank (three AFDs so far, though I'd swear there were more) has been persistently inserting a link to its website into Ecological economics, despite it failing WP:External links.

    So others can judge for themselves the reliability/non-notability of this thing:

    As far as I'm concerned, this is linkspam, and a) should be removed and b) be treated as simple vandalism (per WP:3RR: In cases of simple vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute (e.g. graffiti, link spam [emphasis mine]), the three-revert rule does not apply.).

    So, am I off-base/off-track/beyond the Pale/<insert idiom of choice for wrong-headness here> to continually remove it? And yes, I left a note at WP:RFC three days ago, but no real response. --Calton | Talk 07:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Next time he linkspams - post appropriate warnings on his talk page and if it still continues report it on WP:AIV — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuous reversions/NPOV

    Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive137#NPOV violations

    The user in question, after what was already reported, has continued to revert the page. The user requested a "mediation;" after aforesaid "mediation" and my enumerating exactly what was wrong with his/her edits and the exact reasons for my reverting each of the NPOV edits, and editing two of the comments and inserting them into the article myself, the user again reverted the page, again ignoring other article improvements made by other users, calling my reversion in the edit summary "inflammatory." -Shannernanner 08:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    After aforesaid incident (diff), the character section was forked by another user to a separate article (it was rather large); subsequently, I reverted this article to the previous version and then instead added in the user's text which had been edited to NPOV, as had been agreed upon on the talk page (diff). Harlequin212121 then reverted the page again, again ignoring previous edits, including the agreed-upon compromises (diff). -Shannernanner 03:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin Jayg Inappropriate ban of User:Tit for tat

    Jayjg is EXTREMELY out of line with this block - first it must be proven that this user is a sockpuppet as Jayjg claims. Furthermore he must actually harass User:Jakew before he can be blocked for that. This is an EXTREMELY inappropriate action by Jayjg and very improprietous as Admins Jayjg and Avraham were already suspected to be "in the pocket" (ie biased) of Jakew. forgot my signature Lordkazan 16:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tit for tat is an editor who has appeared here solely for the purpose of harassing User:Jakew, by placing spurious WP:SPA tags on User:Jakew's Talk: page comments. In User:Tit for tat's most recent previous incarnation he egregiously insulted and harassed User:Jakew, was blocked for doing so, and then evaded his block. User:Lordkazan himself has been insulting User:Jakew (e.g. [15]), which might help explain his reaction to this. Jayjg (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jayjg is a checkuser, and therefore has more information to help idenitfy sockpuppetry than most of us do. The contribs of User:Tit for tat don't inspire a lot of confidence that the user is here purely as an encyclopedia hobbyist. Jkelly 16:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And blocking him indefinantly without warning of evidence doesn't give him the chance. Generally you take a user aside before accusing them of being a sockpuppet, without presenting evidence, and telling them to behave.
    Sure i've gotten in heated arguments with Jakew before - that's because he's gaming wikipedia rules to censor information he doesn't like. which is something I already have another admin looking into Lordkazan 16:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In this thread alone, you've already accused two admins of being "in someone's pocket" as well as accusing someone else of "gaming the system"...not very civil yourself. --InShaneee 16:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    who ever said the truth is civil? from everything i've seen of them it's absolutely true that Jakew is gaming the system, he's even been warned by ArbCom before for pov-pushing edits. Avraham jumps to Jakew's defense in a moments notice, often half cocked - including improperly accusing me of putting those SPAs (see my talk page). Jayjg always walked the line of suspicion in my mind until today when he unilaterally and arbitrarily came down on tit for tat without sufficient justification. In my expirience what I said about them is true - and in my book the truth comes before being civil. Lordkazan 16:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In Wikipedia's book, you're required to do both, and if you can't, you don't belong here. --InShaneee 16:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Lordkazan, if something is, in his view, "true", then it cannot be a personal attack. [16] The WP:NPA policy, of course, does not agree. Jayjg (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    that is a straw man. The correct statement would be "According to kazan, something that is true, and that he can backup by citing evidence such as wikipedia diffs, cannot be a personal attack.". The Truth is not an attack, it is the truth. Lordkazan 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore the diff you cite is about my opinion of an ACTION.. ACTION. I recommend you consult WP:NPA yourself. Opinions of an ACTION are not personal attacks. It is an opinion about an action. I'm getting sick and tired of people trying to use wikipedia to enforce their personal viewpoint and abusing the rules to do so. My purpose here is to improve articles and keep them nonbiased. I express my opinions on the talk pages, I only put non-biased information into articles (to the best of my ability). Current Jakew is, by intimidation mostly, driving off editors and frustrating the persistent ones who would undo the bias of articles like Circumcision which is completely ignoring many of the significant health and physical effects that Jakew doesn't like to talk about because they challenge his position - i have no problem having my position challanged, and i have no problem presenting the other sides argument. I want controversial articles to represent all viewpoints, and ones related to medical issues should CONTAIN ALL MEDICAL INFORMATION, not just the medical information that favors one side of the argument. Lordkazan 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was "Truth cannot be libel". Anything can be a personal attack.--Kbdank71 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    President Bush is a warmonger. That's the truth, but it's also an attack. What's key here is that there's both no need to say it on Wikipedia, and if the need arose, there's more tactful ways to address the subject (it has been a staple of Bush's precidency to use military action more than has been seen in recent american history). I'd suggest you learn to do one or the other, and quickly. --InShaneee 17:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Semantics. I could say "Administrators Jayjg and Avraham, have in my expirience, shown a significant amount of bias in Jakew's favor in all my interactions with the three of them. In all my interactions with Jakew and my research of his past interactions with other editors I find there to be a consistent theme of him intimidating other editors (by improper citation of the rules) into not adding well-cited information to articles that challenges his position and that he has been warned by ArbCom in the past for this.". You would prefer it that way, I prefer to be terse. Lordkazan 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally you take a user aside ... and telling them to behave I guess it all depends on what the user is/has been doing. If you come into my living room and start flinging poo, I'm not going to ask you to behave, I'm going to throw you out on your head. --Kbdank71 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And even with an indef block, there are recourses if they claim they want to reform. --InShaneee 17:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence of the user in question "flinging poo" - if it was a 24 hour ban i wouldn't have said a thing, but a permaban is way out of line. Lordkazan 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In your opinion. However, there is such a thing as 'discretion', and as you'll notice, there's not a single admin here who thinks there was any wrongdoing on the blocking admin's part. --InShaneee 17:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And we can agree to disagree - it has been my expirience that Jayjg seems biased in Jakew's behalf mildly, and that Avraham is blatantly so (see his jumping on my case presuming i'm the one who put the SPAs without bothering to look at the diffs!). Lordkazan 17:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please let me speak in defense of myself.
    Firstly: Yes, I know I am evading a block and will at once have my generic account banned, too. It doesn't matter though, does it? I am already permbanned, so I decided to go with it and drop a few lines here myself. As I explained before to members of the ArbCom, user:Jayjg and user:Fred Bauder, I very well know I DID behave badly initially before coming to terms with myself and saying sorry and honestly trying to stick with civilized discussion. My being blocked/banned by user:Nandesuka on the grounds of being suspected as a Sockpuppet of user:Dabljuh came only after I had already apologized and corrected my course.
    Secondly, I do not know how to prove it (all this reminds me of McCarthy era to a certain extent), but neither of my incarnations (IP 87.78.xxx.xxx or Tit_for_tat) is a sockpuppet for Dabljuh or anyone else (apart from this account being a sockpuppet for Tit_for_tat, of course). How that assumption came to life in the first place, I can only speculate about. But it has not been proven and it is not true.
    Thirdly and finally, I did not create this account to harass any user or vandalize any article or take part in any kind of edit war. The user in question and my tagging him as wikipedia:single purpose account is not a personal attack on him or on the thoroughly researched contributions he made, but only about the range of articles he contributed to, which is narrow by any means (well, mine at least) and IMHO qualifies as SPA. Which is not meant to be derogatory. And I'm sorry if he (or someone feeling sympathetically for him and/or his work on Wikipedia) takes it that way. That's all I had to say. I'm not going to bother you beyond this. Thank you. Tat for tit 18:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At last. I was beginning to think I had to do it myself. And thank you also for your comment. 87.78.157.236 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user.[reply]
    Apologies. My bullets weren't sufficient. I meant that I had blocked User:Tat for tit. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You were banned because you created an account for the purpose of harassing another editor, which is what you were doing as an IP address as well. That sums it up. Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you have no right to continue this discussion if you are going to remove content from it from the person you are suppose to be discussing things with. Quite an abuse. --NuclearUmpf 17:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you kidding? Jayjg is enforcing a ban. That's not an abuse. Your interpretation of policy bans is, not surprisingly, less complete than that of an arbcom member. Settle down. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Try to be more civil when talking to your fellow editors, can you please describe what you see coming of a discussion if noone can argue their point because Jay says they cant since they were banned? ITs kinda pointless, he is having a discussion with himself. Maybe you should go settle down and relax and be more courteous. --NuclearUmpf 19:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Banned editors are not allowed to edit, and abetting those banned editors is, in fact, an abuse of your own editing privileges. I am not "supposed to be having a discussion" with a banned editor, and certainly not here. Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then do not continue the commentary if they cannot comment back, you are also not suppose to bait them? I believe you were the one who posted that on my talk page. Continuing the debate after removing their comments is surely not ending the discussion with people you cannot talk to. --NuclearUmpf 19:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He, as someone who ISN'T indefinatly blocked, has every right to respond. --InShaneee 20:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to policy you are not suppose to bait banned users. --NuclearUmpf 20:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let it go. All you are doing is making things worse and nothing is going to be resolved by your repeated interference. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is quite the same situation isnt it. If you want the last word then just say so, if you are not gonig to address the point and instead just threaten, what is the point of saying anything? This idea of posting a threat and not expecting a response is quite silly. The fact taht you threaten action to prevent the other person from responding is exactly why many users feel AN/I is ran by watch-my-back-ill-watch-yours admins. Makes you wonder if they are truely paranoid, I will wait for the Rogue admin link now. My participation here is done, because some admins cannot argue a point, even when there own policy says otherwise from their actions, so they just threaten. --NuclearUmpf 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    An odd sentiment coming from someone who's been here a month, yet has half of their edits to AN:I. --InShaneee 00:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your intelligent response. There is a topic, its appreciated if you stick to it. --NuclearUmpf 00:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    NuclearUmpf, you've made 103 edits to articles and yet you're expending considerable energy trying to tell several experienced admins and an ArbCom member that you know better than them. Banned users aren't allowed to post. That's the end of the matter. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I was reciting what they posted on my talk page and the page on ban. Try to be more civil, its called a discussion. --NuclearUmpf 01:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This has no place on ANI. ANI is for important matters requiring the attention of administrators, not dispute resolution. — Werdna talk criticism 01:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack, possible sockpuppetry etc.

    Great mess at Talk:Conseil scolaire de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest. I was called to mediate there but people were more interested in hurling insults, accusing one another of bad faith. One of the editors has provided evidence of another being a sockpuppet of a banned user. Basically there's loads of wikiviolations going on and I don't have the power nor the time to wade through it. Dev920 (Tory?) 17:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    I was coming here to leave a request that someone take a look at what is happening there. Looks like Dev920 beat me to it. If someone can tell me how to confirm or deny that GST2006 (talk · contribs) is the same as banned user WikiWoo (talk · contribs), that would be a great way to start cleaning up the mess. Thanks. --Stéphane Charette 18:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was originally going to say that this didn't look like WikiWoo's work, having followed that discussion substantially, but after reviewing some of GST2006's earlier contributions, it does seem to be at least in his geographic sphere of interest and some of the early articles do discuss procurement, which was his big soapbox through most of his career. However, the tone of this editor and the method of argument looks to me like it's somewhat different, and the sudden shift of topic seems illogical - if WikiWoo was going to dig into the sock drawer and get right back to work, one would have suspected he would go back to the articles he targeted originally, and not jump over to a school board dispute. I'm not sure if there's enough for a checkuser case here or not, but that might be the way to go. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression that we can't do a checkuser if one of the users hasn't logged in since a while back? I'm biased, but the identity seems fairly obvious to me, and he didn't exactly react innocently to my direct question as to whether he is WikiWoo. (Should have asked if he was WikiWoo, my bad. And yes, I do know it is no proof either way.) Also note how the editor seems to be falling into a WikiWoo cycle of first losing it ("neo-nazis", the board being uninterested in educating students) and then regaining composure and asking to work together. This happened earlier, when he said he was satisfied with my wording (back when the article spoke of only one issue with the board...) only to "add content to expand Wiki" (cough) the next day. Your call. --Qviri (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make a point here: I'm not an admin, so I'm just offering thoughts. I just find the sudden change of personality and target as somewhat out of his character. It sounds like you folks have enough to do an RFCU, and WikiWoo's last edits are likely not old enough to be a problem for a checkuser. That'd be the right way to go here if you seriously feel like he's a sock. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahem. --Qviri (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Then perhaps we should also take a close look at the license for all the penis pictures that are on WP. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 01:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Nudewoman.jpg

    Per the descision to delete the publicgirluk photos, I think this should be deleted too. It is a new user saying she took a picture of herself nude and released the Image under the public domain, just like Publicgirluk. Any thoughts? — Moe Epsilon 21:04 September 27 '06

    Well, I've deleted it. Feel free to overturn it. --HappyCamper 21:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also Image:Sexuality pearl necklace.png which I deleted too. But I think that's all I'll do today. --HappyCamper 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No consensus was formed about what to do in regard to the PGUK photos and from my discussions with Jimbo it does not seem that deletion is mandated by him. Therefore, what basis are these deletions occuring under? JoshuaZ 21:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For that matter, have either of you two gentlemen bothered to contact the uploader? Moe, I noticed you posted to HappyCamper's talk page, but based on a review of your latest user talk contributions, no sign that you contacted the uploader. That strikes me as a very uncollegial means of dealing with the problem, if a problem exists. I'd like to point out that Wikipedia has been mocked mercilessly over the last half week or so over the handling of the Publicgirluk situation... turns out that they probably were good-faith uploads after all. Oops. Captainktainer * Talk 22:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to both JoshuaZ and Ck: No consensus was formed what to due with the publicgirluk photos, but were they restored? I don't believe they were. The reason they were deleted in the first place was because it was possibly a hoax. If they were good-faith, I'll be the first in line to ask for the undeletion of the photos. But it's sort of risky to assume good faith that a user whose first edits are uploads of "themselves" nude, and then they never edit again. Ck, I didn't bother to contact the uploader, true, but the two uploaders User:Nnixon and User:Cp79 have left Wikipedia or they aren't bothering to come back. Nnixon only made two edits, the upload and adding the pic to an article. Likewise with Cp79, who also engaged in some talk page discussion, but left the following day. Why leave a message to a user telling them of thier Image deletion if they are apparently not coming back? If someone gets in contact with the users' and it is 100% certain that they are the models in they photos, we can readd them, but it's too risky otherwise. — Moe Epsilon 23:31 September 27 '06
    I've seen a number of users who start out by making a few edits, don't edit for a while (even a month at a time), and then start editing regularly again. I've got several on my watchlist at the moment, actually. A couple of them started off by making rather controversial edits. It was also around the time of the users' creation that a Wikitruth article on the topic went up, and a number of Wikipedians read Wikitruth. Anyway, it's worth it to at least make an attempt. If it has to be after the fact because of potential legal problems, then it has to be after the fact, but in the meantime not bothering to inform the original uploader strikes me as very problematic. Captainktainer * Talk 02:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore I find it laughable that anyone respectable would mock wikipedia for removing a nude picture that was uploaded by a person who outright refuses to provide any sort of evidence that they are really who they say they are. It seems obvious that the entire ordeal was either a hoax or someone either making a point or trying to get wikipedia in trouble, and the people who defended the user mainly seemed to be doing it out of excitement of the possibility of having contact with a intelligent and beautiful woman who likes to post sexual pictures of herself. I should clarify that I don't have any problems with the pictures themselves, but the fact that the user was possibly not who they said they were really made me worry about the possibility of legal issues.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a good time to point people towards Wikipedia:Verifying unusual image licenses, which is a draft of a policy to address this and similar issues. Dragons flight 00:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a good title because unusual image licenses could mean things like CeCILL which we don't see much.Geni 00:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undeleted both of these. The publicgirluk situation is by no means a precedent we ought to automatically repeat. If anyone wants them deleted, they should at least take it to an WP:IFD debate, give the community a chance to comment on it.. and at LEAST contact the uploaders and double check. I'm going to contact them myself. Mangojuicetalk 01:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also raise Image:Bride-two.jpg, a not-very-useful image of a woman in her underwear doing something silly. On the more general point: I don't think we need to be too keen to have images taken from life to represent various sexual topics, and nor do we need to represent 'ordinary' topics in a sexualised manner. Nudity has the balance right but woudl probably benefit from more naked photos of old ugly people. The Land 19:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We are also discussing this in a proposed guideline (for the sexology and sexuality project, not all of Wikipedia) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines. Template:Sexology-project-guidelines-notify

    Publicgirluk

    The woman in the photos is porn model, Anna, aka "Linda Lust". You can see photos on http://galleries.anna19.com/lollyanna/n/1022766 and (large download) http://www.babeindex.se/showthread.php?p=1661#post1661. The latter site includes the photos submitted to wiki.

    Both Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikitruth have made much of the Publicgirluk incident to mock Wikipedia in general and Jimbo Wales in particular. Interestingly Wikitruth claims, "We contacted her and got her permission to put up these photos", so either they're not so truthful after all, or else they knew the source and still went ahead to castigate Wikipedia, which is also not very truthful, but worth recording in Wikitruth. No doubt both these sites will be withdrawing their remarks and offering an apology.

    Anna is stated to be Swedish, and Publicgirluk claimed to be English, so one of them's telling porkies, but, even in the unlikely event that the model did upload them, they are still a copyvio. It all points to the need for strict verification of authenticity.

    PS Linda Lust on Swedish Wiki.

    Tyrenius 02:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (back to wikibreak)[reply]

    WP:DENY

    Suggesting this is probably going to get me flamed into the next century, but why exactly do we have this template, and why wouldn't we delete the latter half of the pages mentioned on it since they don't have any meaningful content? >Radiant< 22:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In general, I was eventually planning to change Template:Oldafdfull to admit several discussion put in one template; as articles age, there is no reason to have 4+ templates to old AfDs at the top of a talk page. —Centrx→talk • 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating a new template isn't necessary; see {{multidel}}. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine with that template going... it seems to just glorify that Wikipedia has been trolled. If nothing else, it encourages the periodic sockpuppet AfD of the article in question, and so on. --W.marsh 01:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template makes it blindingly obvious that anyone who attempts to create #18 for the fourth time will be insta-troutwhacked. Though I'd be in favor of deleting 17, 16, ..., any that are basically empty, since 18 has already been deleted a few times. --Interiot 02:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose {{multidel}} would work well enough...I really don't see any harm in glorifying the most AFD'd page in WIkipedia history. And GNAA makes me laugh. I liek this proposal the most: Wikipedia talk:Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007 Hbdragon88 05:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Attilios changing era styles

    User:Attilios is changing era styles from BC/AD to BCE/CE. This is against rules (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk). The changes ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21]) interrupted after a discussion (User_talk:Attilios#BCEs and User_talk:Panarjedde#Eras), but he does not want to revert his changes, and I can't do it myself, otherwise it would be a breaking of the same rule. What is to be done?--Panarjedde 22:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If he has stopped, great; crisis over, we can all get on with our wiki-lives. Personally, I think the whole BCE/CE thing is a bunch of politically correct mumbo-jumbo that most other civilizations don't bother with in their own, endogenous date systems, and I absolutely refuse to use it in any new articles that I create, but once it's done, it's done. Undoing the changes would essentially be revert-warring over dates, which the Arbitration Committee said was harmful and shouldn't be done. If he does it again then a revert and a warning is in order. If he doesn't do it again, great; discussion and consensus have won the day. Captainktainer * Talk 22:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand. He actually did something he should not have done, and now it is impossible to undo his edits? So, to make an example, I start changing "colour" into "color" until someone tell me to stop, and my edits can't be reverted?--Panarjedde 22:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what is the harm in allowing them to stay the way they are? He violated one of Wikipedia's arcane rules (there are several hundred by now, hence the saying "process is evil"), and now he won't do it again. There are other things far more important than date changes, which is what the Arbitration Committee appeared to have been trying to communicate with their ruling. Also, "colour/color" is a different case - there are fairly clear standards for when one or the other applies, depending on the predominant style of the region most associated with the article's topic, or, failing that, according to the majority style of the article. Seriously, that ruling was made to end an issue. I'd recommend just letting it go. Captainktainer * Talk 22:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No harm, of course, but why his edits are allowed even if are against rules, while other edits of the same kind are promptly reverted (and the user blocked, sometimes)? And the Arbitration Committee did not say "there are other things far more important than date changes", but rather "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change" (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk#Optional_styles). What I do not understand it is if I am allowed to do inappropriate things or not, and if inappropriate things can be reverted or not.--Panarjedde 22:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This may not be the best approach here. The user in question has changed articles from one style to the other before, and has been informed that this isn't a good idea as recently as August 18. The fact that nobody reverted his changes in this particular case doesn't really excuse them. Kirill Lokshin 23:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ...otherwise it would be a breaking of the same rule. I don't see how returning something to the status quo would be breaking the rules about maintaining the status quo, so I don't see the rules stopping you from reverting the changes (other than doing so multiply, of course). I'm also not sure why it matters either way. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't revert changes as a method of punishment. We make changes to improve encyclopedic content. If someone is making changes that are neutral in their effect on encyclopedic content, we can block them if it is causing ongoing annoyance and disruption (though I've never understood why people actually get annoyed about these petty things); however, we don't cause further disruption to the encyclopedia by reversing changes when doing so won't actually improve the article in question. There's an exception when a banned user makes changes, but that's a pretty special case. Metamagician3000 01:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not a punishment. If a consensus was achieved that such changes were not allowed, we revert to show respect for the consensus.--Panarjedde 01:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The best thing to do if you want to change the era style is to first simply ask on the Talk page if anyone cares. If no one objects within a reasonable amount of time (say 5-7 days), go ahead & change the style BC/AD -> BCE/CE or BCE/CE -> BC/AD. Whichever you prefer. If someone objects, then the person pushing for the change ought to discuss the matter. This is a contentious issue, & many Wikipedians are aware that opinions run hot on both sides of the issue, so simple courtesy & respect for each other dictate that people ask before making this change. But mankind hasn't figured out a way to effectively legislate courtesy & respect, sadly. -- llywrch 01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a small but not insignficant difference between "not allowed" and "not helpful". -- nae'blis 02:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack Sarfatti request, again

    Jack went on another one his tears, railing against his many enemies and trying to "out" anyone who displeases him, succh as myself. Would some admin mind going in and deleting some recent edits where he tries this stunt, namely removing his attempts to identify me, such as [22], [23], [24], and [25] -- though you could probably also lose [26] and [27], too, just on general principle. This is a standard request, and I'd like some response instead of having my original request ignored and shoved off to the archives after a few days. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like Jayjg fixed it. By the way, could someone post the trick for deleting a few edits froma long history without having to manually check every box? Thatcher131 04:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Guettarda explained on my talk page. Thanks! Thatcher131 11:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The water fuel cell is a device that was proven to be a scam: its "inventor" was found guilty of gross and egregious fraud for deceiving people into investing in the idea. Over the past couple of days, a mild edit war has been raging on the article, as someone keeps adding nonsense to it, and reverting changes which portray the device in a less than flattering light. Even though the 3RR rule has been broken many times over, no-one has bothered going through the red tape to report it. However, twice now (I reverted the first one), this user has placed a ridiculous set of paragraphs at the top of the article, which ends in the statement that "Spreading malicious lies about patent protected technology which in under license is illegal, and opens the Wikimedia Foundation to libel suits and a host of other nasty legal proceedings" [28]. Someone with power to block the IP and user concerned might want to take a look. Byrgenwulf 02:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The user's details are:
    Kentforbes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    131.216.163.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    131.216.163.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    131.216.163.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    In case this helps. Byrgenwulf 02:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR has been broken with extravagant splendour, in the time since Byrgenwulf posted the above. Diffs: [29] (04:20), [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] (04:44). All of these are the same individual inserting the same nonsense/legal threat. Anville 02:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Article is now semiprotected.[35] --physicq210 03:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I only blocked the currently vandalising one (131.216.163.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) since it was clearly a dynamic IP. Kentforbes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is already indef-blocked. Semi-protect should keep the next one away. Antandrus (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible block evasion

    I believe that User:Zandvoort is a block evasion sock of User:Burneville who is currently on a 48h for 3RR violation at Jim Clark. The reverts are identical as each others as well as prior socks (User:Pflanzgarten & various anons). Please consider block of the sock and extension of block on Burneville (or whatever you feel is appropriate). --After Midnight 0001 02:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind - This was also posted by another userr on 3RR and I missed it the first time I looked over there. Oh well. I'm off to RFCU now.... --After Midnight 0001 02:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Pflanzgarten is back - with the identical revert. He's still blocked as User:Burneville and User:Zandvoort. -- Ian Dalziel 01:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Microsoft vandalism, IP hating, & Hildanknight

    Some of you who deal with vandalism may be aware of someone who's been hitting the microsoft-related articles, often replacing S with $ and c with ¢. example using shared singapore IPs. (Also this) Or of an account that seemed to revert anonymous users for no good reason. See AN discussion on User:No_more_anonymous_editing for that one. There's also a user I've suspected for awhile to have something to do with it, Hildanknight, who gotten into a conflicts reguarding restricting anonymous editing. Well, my suspicions were confirmed recently. Jayig's use of checkuser ties all these together as one. Hildanknight is vandalising in his spare time to try to influence negative opinions on anonymous editing by vandalising himself. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hildanknight for checkuser evidence. Could an administrator please deal with Hildanknight at this point? He's caused large amounts of semi-automated vandalism in his attempts to somehow get anonymous editing banned from wikipedia. While its not a difficulty to quickly mass revert his vandalism, it needs to end. Thanks. --Kevin_b_er 02:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd support a community ban on the basis of long-term deception, bad faith, and disrupting to make a point (and of course the vandalism). I'm a little too green to do it myself, though. Thatcher131 04:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support a community ban as well - the user has blatantly violated WP:POINT and is clearly too radical in his attempts to get IPs banned from Wikipedia, eternally holding a grudge against all IP addresses (he's gotten into many conflicts with valid IP users in the past). For the record, however, I'm told that the IP he uses is just about the only IP in singapore, so blocking it would impact many other users, so caution should be taken in that respect. Cowman109Talk 16:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If what you say is true, the block will trigger an autoblock, which will be rapidly lifted, meaning he can still disrupt to make a point as an anon or a new username (until we figure it out again). Essentially, then, banning him is an official expression that he is no longer welcome here. Thatcher131 18:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support an indef block. If it sticks it's then a community ban. Agree with Thatcher131 that we may as well not bother blocking the IP given how things are in S'pore. addresswise... ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User_talk:24.127.195.111

    This anon user has been systematically vandalizing a number of articles over the past week or so despite repeated requests to stop on the users talk page. In particular in the article Blond. Two warnings were given on the users talk page, plus the user has a history of similar vandalism's and warnings on other articles, such as at dreadlocks. If you need any more information let me know. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 04:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, thanks Ill try that. -- Stbalbach 04:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the guy for 24h. Next time please use WP:AIV abakharev 04:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanks, next time I will go through AIV procedures. thanks. -- Stbalbach 04:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:80.237.173.67

    IP 80.237.173.67 vandalizing Israel's unilateral disengagement plan and the talk page of AuburnPilot after final warning. InvictaHOG 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops, meant to post at AIV InvictaHOG 04:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A1794 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also acting as 68.208.8.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be adding link spam to some pages. I noticed this because a user with account named A1794 added copies of some wikipedia pages (Burglar, Burglar alarm, and Primerica) to Mozilla's wiki (since deleted from there), so I was suspicious of link spam. In particular, the links to Bulldog Security Services : Atlanta Home Security, although there could be others. I don't understand what the benefit of copying Primerica to Mozilla's wiki was, but I'm suspicious that there could be link spam there as well. --David Baron 07:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User Talk:193.171.151.129

    This is the first time I've ever recommended a block, but User:193.171.151.129 has ignored several warnings. contribs -newkai t-c 10:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Guess this goes to WP:AIV. I followed a wikilink from Wikipedia:Blocking Policy here. -newkai t-c 10:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

    The following was posted on User:JzG's page because he's experienced in AfD.

    I need a second opinion on an admin ruling, and I wonder if you would be willing to help me out. I know that you are an extremely reasonable man. The admin above removed my speedy delete A3 tag on List of insular languages, saying that the AfD should run its course. I think that's a waste of admin time and editor time. I've seen him do this before, and it's extremely frustrating. I've never seen another admin do this. I've found that it's customary to tag things at AfD with a speedy delete tag if they qualify. I'm going to put up the tag again, and maybe you could delete it. Thank you. If you would like me to contact another admin on the matter, I will. This is an unacceptable situation, as the article is clearly crap and speedily deletable. Billy Blythe 13:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't expect to prevail, because it seems that editors are second class citizens. I'm really pissed off about this, because it's a waste of time, and it's following process for the sake of following process. WP:IAR and WP:SNOW applies here. Billy Blythe 13:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. I'm not Guy, but I was stopping by to check on something else. Speedying something already up for AfD is certainly unorthodox; once it's up for community discussion the common way to indicate that you think it should vanish immediately is through a comment on the AfD with "Speedy Delete" in bold. If you look through the AfD logs, you'll see them come up. But I think Future Perfect at Sunrise was correct to take it to AfD rather than speedy, as the prod was contested. Speedy deletion is only for when it's obvious junk. User Fg2 felt it wasn't obvious, so the AfD looks appropriate. William Pietri 13:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its an obvious speedy but as William stated above it was put up for AfD and once that happens it should be allowed to follow proccess. Unfortunatly I think it is a waste, but how much resources are really wasted if it results in WP:SNOW? So while I agree with you, I am more concerned with people sticking to proccess. --NuclearUmpf 13:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm widely rumored to be a deletionist, and yet I always feel that, once something is up at AfD, we might as well let it run its course, unless it is an obvious candidate for speedy deletion or causes harm in some manner. Merely taking our time is not, to me, an argument, as, if it's an obvious delete and SNOWball, then it's going to be deleted anyway. The only reason to avoid that process, in my view, is if one believes that there is going to be a big astroturfing campaign. I doubt this will happen here. If it does, that's a separate matter and a separate complaint. Geogre 14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I just see I've come to be honoured with a rogue-admin complaint on ANI when I'm not even an admin! :-) Just to give my version of the story, I first attempted to do a PROD, that was contested, so I put it on AfD, and I removed that speedy notice out of a sense of due process because like JzG I actually don't think CSD A3 applies. Nothing else happened, no reasons for getting upset. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did respond to this at my tazlk, but as far as I can see it's not an unambiguous speedy - it may be that an experienced linguist will ocme along and tell us that actually it's a valid term. Given that it's already at AfD I see no pressing reason why we should not let that run, there being no harm done by this article that I can see. Guy 22:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cgordonbell

    I note that we still have no answer from the user as to whether they are actually Gordon Bell, three weeks after the question was first raised on their talk page and here on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I also note that most or all of their edits have been reverted.

    I suspect it's time to block the user as an inappopriate username. If it really is C. Gordon Bell, I'm sure he'll be able to figure out how to ask for unblocking. Heck, as one of his former employees from better days, he can E-mail me and I'll happily explain it! ;-)

    Atlant 14:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A User:KraMuc anonsock vandalized my page of notes

    In this edit, 84.154.83.159 (talk · contribs · block log) (the dip.t-dialin anon, known to be used by permabanned user KraMuc (talk · contribs · block log), has vandalized by user subpage of notes on the KraMuc case, User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc, which I believe violates the policy expressed in ArbCom finding. Please help me monitor and promptly revert for this kind of vandalism, and please consider blocking KraMuc anons on sight. ---CH 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen L. Nelson

    First this editor added an article on himself (as a business writer, he probably merits an article) and then he added links to his various websites. I have deleted the links twice but he has simply re-added them. Since a note on the talk page is probably irrelevant (I suspect he is the only one who would see it), can someone else chime in here and explain WP:EL if you agree that a link to his commercial website does not further the purpose of the article? -- DS1953 talk 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He actually seems to be right. WP:EL 2, says "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one." So at least his official page should stay. Linking to 3 "official sites" is debatable, but I'd give it to him as well, it's not as if he has 20.
    What's more, since the article says: "He also publishes a small business accounting web site with several thousand pages of small business tax, computer and accounting information including free pdf versions of half a dozen of his books, an LLC formation web site that provides do-it-yourself limited liability company formation kits for all fifty states, and an S corporation setup web site that provides do-it-yourself S corporation setup kits for all fifty states." - writing that without giving the actual links seems kind of perverse. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Beageal

    This user is just a here to vandalize. See his contributions. He is new, so I'm not sure what procedure should be used to handle him.--Esprit15d 18:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism-only accounts are blocked indefinitely, like this one. Grandmasterka 19:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef block on Frogsprog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I have indef blocked Frogsprog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His talk page is filled with warnings and he has been blocked repeatedly. His replacement of a vandal edit on the talk page of the George W Bush article was the last straw. Comments welcome of course.--MONGO 20:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had my eye on this guy ever since he created a userbox congratulating Osama on a job well done. Just a complete troublemaker, support block. Grandmasterka 20:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here, ever since I speedy deleted his offensive praise-of-9/11-attacks userbox. In fact I was debating slapping an indef block on him just before MONGO did. He has a long and colorful history of vandalism, trolling, and disruption. Fully support block. Antandrus (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidates

    I am totally at a loss to find anything at all professional in this edit. I'm really not in a position to argue with ArbCom members. Could I get another pair of eyes on this, please? --Jumbo 21:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Although Jayjg probably should have explained himself in his edit summary, it's generally accepted to not wikilink dates unless they're accompanied by years. For example, you would wikilink "August 13, 2006," but not just August 13. WP:DATE has more information on this. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No. "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. For example:
    • Month and day

    o [[February 17]] → 17 February

    o [[17 February]] → 17 February"

    --Guinnog 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jumbo should probably leave dates alone for a bit. Guy 22:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. Will do. But for how long should I have to wait for busy ArbCom members to come up with a consistent position? Is it a case of de minimis non curat lex or minima maxima sunt? --Jumbo 22:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's plenty to do. Leave dates for a while and find some other useful tasks. You're not the only one involved in conflicts over date linking, I know. Guy 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like a better sentence in the prose. We shouldn't try to shove in awkward things like "It will happen from 11 October to 21 October", repeating October just to get date preferences to work where they aren't necessary. —Centrx→talk • 23:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the date linking issues are recent and a bit heated - probably best to not jump into that pot of boiling water yet :). Oh wee, I used a metaphor. Cowman109Talk 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the best course is not to get heated up over such a trivial issue. Centrx's comment above intrigues me. Is he saying that Jayjg changed
    to
    • In 2006 the festival will take place from the 11th to the 14th of October.
    because it looked better in the prose? I find this very hard to swallow! --Jumbo 23:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    New spambot

    Perhaps there are a few open proxies in this bunch? Ryūlóng 22:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That achieved them an entry on the spam blacklist - possibly not what they had in mind :-) Guy 23:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Was also:

    Among no doubt many others... /wangi 23:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Probable sockpuppet of Robertjkoenig

    user:Robertjkoenig and his multiple sockpuppets have been banned for abuse of Wikipedia. He frequently posts on the entrly for USAA or on other very loosely related pages; his posts usually refer to litigation regarding USAA, as well as the fact that it is unincorporated. He believes for some strange reason that the CEO of USAA is out to steal billions of dollars from the association and that anyone who disagrees with this outlandish unsupported accusation must be employed by USAA or is somehow otherwise compensated. He and/or his sockpuppets will begin to attack anyone who disagrees. Lately, he has tried to use the reciprocal inter-insurance exchange page to continue his non factually based crusade against USAA; he also edited my user page. Lately, one of his socks user:Llm1017 has started to post exclusively on the reciprocal inter-insurance exchange page in a manner extraordinarily consistent with Robert J Koenig's writing. Most telling is his contention that I am an Attorney for USAA; if you read his blog at [36] he makes similar accusations about myself and others. Please do what you can to block yet another one of his sockpuppets.

    Swizzlez 23:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    June 2

    Don't know if this is the right place, but someone wiped out all the events of June 2 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2 Thanks - --Broux 23:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the heads-up; it's already been fixed. In the future, feel free to revert such blatant vandalism yourself. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks --Broux 00:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption from User:ClairSamoht

    Hi, I'm unsure what to do. Recently there has been a lot of controversy on Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates about the appropriate way to provide references for certain articles which are standard textbook material. I have been trying, without much success, to mediate an informal compromise.

    User:ClairSamoht seems to have gotten a bee in his or her bonnet about this. First the user is adding noncompliant tags to (featured!) articles like big bang with edit summaries of "vandalism" [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43] (and more). This is clearly in violation of WP:POINT. Moreover, ClairSamoht is encouraging seasoned users to leave Wikipedia for disagreeing [44] which seems to violate basic standards of civility (not to mention that Wikipedia already seems to be having a problem with experts getting frustrated and leaving). Look, there is a genuine disagreement here, and peoples hackles are getting raised, but this is unacceptable in my book. Can someone have a look at ClairSamoht's contribs and comment? Thanks. –Joke 00:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I should also point out that Good Articles are being delisted by the user [45], [46] without a review. –Joke 00:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked ClairSamoht why he/she tagged "Creationism" with an "unverifiable" template, as the article has copious references and footnotes, and he/she responded that there were certain sections which he/she thought should have references but didn't. IMO this is a clear mis-use of the tags, and is in the end not helpful — if an editor has specific complaints, there are ways to indicate the area of problem with far more specificity, and in any case blanket tagging without taking the time to explain the complaints is lazy and ineffectual. It does not help the project to indiscriminantly tag articles without real explanation, and I don't think posting a generic and inspecific template to a talk page counts as explanation. --Fastfission 00:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    The Verifiability policy says that "any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". Yes, I have placed tags on several articles I've run across recently, for the reasons that the tag was created:
    1. the tag warns readers that the articles do not meet Wikipedia quality standards, and the articles may have untrustworthy content
    2. the tag recruits editors to work on the articles, and bring them up to Wikipedia quality standards
    3. the tag asks readers not to form a bad opinion of Wikipedia on the basis of the deficient article.
    The verifiability policy allows any editor to challenge or remove unsourced content. In some of the articles I've tagged, there have been stretches of paragraph after paragraph without a single source being given. I have not disrupted Wikipedia by removing that unsourced content, but instead challenged the content with a Template:unsourced or Template:noncompliance tag, as official policy states I may do.
    In the Creationism article, for instance, there aren't "copious" citations. Most paragraphs have NO citations at all. Adding one tag that applies to the whole article is substantially less disruptive than applying a hundred {{citationneeded}} tags.
    In a number of cases, others have removed the dispute tags, in violation of WP:VAND, and I've reverted the removal with a note that removing dispute tags is vandalism. In more than one case, my posts to talk pages pointing out the requirements of WP:V have been deleted by others, leading users such as Joke to think that nothing had been posted on the talk page.
    When others have argued that they should be allowed to write whatever comes into their mind, and ignore the policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, that they probably would be happier writing pages at GeoCities, where they could do that, or that they avail themselves of the WikiMedia software, and start their own site. When others have argued that it's unreasonable to expect anyone to write complete articles, and they should have a bunch of external links to make up for that deficiency, I have pointed out that Dmoz does that, and they're always looking for editors.
    The problem with "experts" getting frustrated and leaving is that "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog" When Encarta hires someone, they vet that person's background and credentials, and if they get caught diddling the data, they not only lose the Encarta job, but they can find themselves unemployable. What are the consequences for misfeasance or malfeasance as a Wikipedia editor? There are none. Rufus923 can sign up again, ten minutes later as Jasper911, and the editor doesn't miss any mortgage payments, doesn't even have to blush, because nobody need know he's actually a border collie living in Boise Idaho.
    Articles that do not meet Good Article standards are supposed to be delisted. The ones I've delisted haven't even been borderline; they have serious deficiencies. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 01:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like a good topic to bring up on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check talk page, maybe get some activity going in those moribund pages. Everyone knows there is room for improvement in the good and featured articles—is this the best way to accomplish it? delisting them?EricR 02:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you dispute any of the actual claims? That's what WP:V is about. If you dispute a claim, add the {{fact}} tag to that claim. What you're doing right now is disruptive and not helpful. --W.marsh 02:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexander Gardner

    I think I deleted the first part of an article on Alexander Gardner (the Soldier) while adding my own brilliant thoughts.......have no idea how to deal with this m.leahan@verizon.net sorry

    Alaska

    Alaska's received a fair bit of vandalism lately. Keep an eye on it. DRK 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=78429566"