Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive396

Sesshomaru and Tyar

• On User talk:Sesshomaru there is an edit war going on between User:Sesshomaru and User:Tyar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what Tyar's problem with Sesshomaru is even after looking at his contribution history, but this sort of harassment and crap is unacceptable. Tyar was blocked for a week just now and I endorse it. Grandmasterka 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sesshomaru has dealt with a lot of sockpuppets lately, mostly from banned user JJonz. Redrocket (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

He also is very quick to call things vandalism whether they are or not. A recent example involved User:Tylar, and is probably the origin of Tylar's bad behaviour, if yer curious.[1] 86.44.26.69 (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, but for the sake of discussion, the blocked user you're referring to is actually Tyar. Tyar was blocked yesterday, and has also been blocked again today as 75.183.4.204 for personal attacks and sockpuppetry.

Thanks! Luckily User:Tylar is a redlink. I'm sorry you disagree about the other issue. I came across three other examples yesterday before seeing this thread. Template:uw-vandalism4 had been added in two of them. It's not a good practice, misleads newcomers and leads to drama. Wikipedia:Vandalism is a good read on this. 86.44.26.69 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with you that sometimes users jump too quickly to V4 warnings, thus biting the newbies. However in this situation, User talk:Tyar had already been blocked twice for edit warring and harassment. Redrocket (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Emmerdale episodes

This might seem quite trivial, but none the less it's frustrating me somewhat. The template Emmerdale episodes is used as a running tally to record episode numbers. Because of constant inconsistancies in date, I decided to change it to use the FULLDATE template which grabs the day when a date is entered. However, another "editor" (I use editor lightly) is persistant in reverting my change, with his reasoning being that "he prefers it the American style". This has nothing to do with cultural differences, as the show in question for the tally is British, coupled with the fact that his change means the day doesn't show, which has pretty much created an edit-war somewhat.

Ok, so that's pretty much the issue. As I said, I know it's trivial and I couldn't really see it as "vandalism", or at least what is normally described as vandalism, but possibly falling into edits without good reason with disrespect towards my civillity (I have been civil on his talk page). What's the best way to approach this? Cheers. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a standard for TV episode stamping? Whilst Emmerdale doesn't fit into a numbering system per se, it's easier it all TV episodic shows follow the same guidelines. Minkythecat (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural rather than television; per WP:MoS (which is 'pedia wide) British related subjects should use Br-En grammar etc. conventions. Project guidelines should generally follow WP where there are multi-cultural applications (not that I wish to suggest that Emmerdale is "cultural" in anything but the loosest sense of the word!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No idea what the situation with the episode numbering is, so I'll leave that for more informed people to resolve, but the matter regarding the date format can be resolved by recourse to WP:DATE and MOS:SYL. Have reverted to the last edit by Bungle and low-level-warned the other user accordingly. Note that my edit made some other change to the episode numbers - that may need to be looked at by someone else. Orderinchaos 04:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the note about date formats and user-specific preferences. I don't believe there is a "set standard" for formatting with this kind of template, but as mentioned before, there is set standards and preferences for date formatting per geographical location. Orderinchaos, the actual numbering you mentioned is negligable to the problem and easily sorted, but my appreciations go to you for referring some useful and noteworthy policies, hopefully finding some resolution. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just calling attention to this one - The user Wingard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is sterile-reverting edits to this template, including my most recent attempt to resolve the issue. A couple of eyes on this one would be good - thanks. Orderinchaos 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This still continues to be an issue and the user in question doesn't seem to be changing his habits or indeed acknowleging there is a problem. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Firefly322

This user is getting much problematic including uninformed WP:POINT prodding of articles and personal attacks against other editors.

• His vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamophilia (third nomination). The article was original synthesis and he voted "strong keep" in the article. [2] While due the problems with the article, I voted "Strong Delete". [3]

In response, he proded the article Corruption in India which I created without informing the primary contributor [4]. NPOV disputes should be solved by editing, not by deletion. This was a WP:POINT prod by this user.

• Regarding Islamophilia, if administrators read my contribution to the deleted article on Islamophilia and the reference that I used, any scholarly assessement will conclude that my analysis of the material and my contribution were objective. My subsequent vote of Strong Keep were completely in line with the discovery of such material. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• As for proding Corruption in India, I can honestly say that it had nothing to do with Otolemur crassicaudatus's vote in Islamophilia. The events were far apart in time.

• Personal attacks against User:Pedro. [5]
  • Both having concerns with adminstator activities and voicing them does shift the focus from topic, making things possibly and unfortunately personal. But such a shift, with reason, does not constitute an attack. Yet writing here "Personal attacks against Perdo" is an unspecified, general claim of a personal attack. To quote policy (WP:NPA): Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Now there is a discussion about the article Jonathan Wheeldon in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wheeldon. WP:ATHLETE says athelets will be notable if "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)". Which is not the case of Jonathan Wheeldon. While hovering AfDs, I voted delete in the article for failing WP:ATHLETE. In response he made this comment [6].

• In Otolemur crassicaudatus and Jwire hovering my activies, they voted in a way that strongly seemed to be making a point. If there was a disruption (and I'm not claiming there neccessarily was), it wasn't in the message (i.e., don't shoot the messanger). Ideally, it would be better if such things didn't happen on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone look into the matter. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also see this pointy vote at an AfD I started, after I deprodded Corruption in India (IP edit, he logged in and fixed the signature in the next edit). Jfire (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• • (IP edit, he logged in and fixed the signature in the next edit) And correcting my log-in error is a problem? How so? Seems like good etiquette, fixing my mistakes. Jfire is pointing out something good. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Fixing the signature is perfectly fine, I was merely pointing that out as it might not have been clear that the initial edit that I linked to was done by you. The problem is the appearance of a vote that seems to be tit-for-tat retaliation, backed by an argument that both misunderstands policy and accuses another editor (me) of being out of line with respect to said policy. That sort of thing, combined with the things that Otolemur notes above, is what brings up the concern that your recent edits have been somewhat WP:POINTy. Jfire (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the editor of both this complaint and the concerns raised here on their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Note there is some commentary on my talk page at User_talk:Pedro#User:Firefly322 that may be relevant. Pedro :  Chat  21:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Again, as an administator, I would think that User:Pedro would not hover in on AfD's that I'm involved with (as Pedro has just done on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Fairclough ). It gives the appearance of point making by an administator, which is especially troublesome to newcomers WP:BITE. This has been one of the things at the heart of my grievances with User:Pedro). Ideally, point making and the appearance of authority of one editor over another editor would not happen on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

* Regarding Islamophilia, if administrators read my contribution to the deleted article on Islamophilia and the reference that I used, any scholarly assessement will conclude that my analysis of the material and my contribution were objective. {emphasis mine}

Wouldn;t the phrase "My analysis" indicate insertion of an opinion ? F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

According to wikipedia guidelines, each and every contribution made to an article on wikipedia is the analysis of some reference. Oftentimes the inclusion of the reference is overlooked when the analysis seems common sense or common knowledge. Every contribution someone makes to wikipedia is my or your or his or her analysis. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think that User:Pedro would not hover in on AfD's that I'm involved with - Apparently you're not familiar with the idea of quality control. And as you're not a newcomer, how, exactly, does WP:BITE affect you in the slightest? --Calton | Talk 16:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:MacedonianBoy

Personal attack, impoliteness and incivility by User:MacedonianBoy here. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

He is continuing: [7]. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow :| The user being discussed called someone "stupid animal" - rather full on. Orderinchaos 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly ... blocked for 24 hours. Blueboy96 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call, obviously. Note that this outburst was triggered by 3rdAlcove's complaining about what he saw as irridentist political propaganda on MacedonianBoy's user page, a topic that was only today independently brought up on my page too, (here. The issue of just how much Macedonia-related political ranting is acceptable on user pages has come up repeatedly. Comments welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I also directed him to the Serbian-language version of "no personal attacks" - have contacted a Macedonian admin to see if a translation is available in that language. Orderinchaos 17:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So? Does that excuse him, Future? My comment was in response to -his- calling editors 'propagandists', I couldn't care less about what he puts on his user page (which I first noticed about a week ago or so, actually; notice that I didn't complain about it). Add to that his calling me a "subsaharian(sic) asshole" and older comments about "subsaharan Greeks" and "tatar Bulgarians". Since he has contributed a few articles (peppered with some ethnic Macedonian POV-pushing here and there, of course), I propose that no action be taken at the moment against him -if any would be taken, that is-. Next time he should be banned for as long as it takes him to cool down, though.

Edit: I just noticed the 24-hour ban. Ah well, it's not that long, anyway.

Edit 2: Sorry if I misinterpreted you btw, FPaS. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't criticizing you and I wasn't excusing him. Just wanted to see if there's some more opinions about that wider issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"I am ready to sacrifice my self for the truth and the facts. I do not care about your opinion at all." [8] - nice consensus-building style there :/ I am done there - I think the 24 hour block is appropriate and if future problems arise they can be dealt with in future. Orderinchaos 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, but i must say that User:MacedonianBoy seems quite rude indeed. EraserGirl (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In other words, that mean I am the only one so called rude one. I do not believe it. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please tone it down. You are skating on thin ice as far WP:ARBMAC is concerned. Moreschi (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I do not want to be bad guy here, that is all. regards.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:CarlosRodriguez

This user continues to make horribly POV edits to Jeremiah Wright after being warned numerous times about his actions. He was reported to AIV previously, but the admin declined because he wasn't really vandalising. But the admin did say to come here if the disruptive behavior continued - it did. Here is the warnings I gave to him on his talk page, with diffs as well:

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Grsz11 04:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

yet more bullying with no specifics from a passionate edit warrior

[9], [10], [11]. You know quite well what I'm talking about. Grsz11 04:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have commented the WP:AIV report, declining to block now on the grounds that it is - even though obvious policy nonconform - not persitent vandalism or spamming. However, if this behaviour continues, I will block you. Poeloq (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe we can work towards a consensus on the talk page to include some of your material . Please join us there to discuss your proposed changes.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

More violations: [12], [13], [14], [15].

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Grsz11 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You can check the page history for additional disruptive behavior. He refuses to acknowledge the significance of NPOV, consensus and original research, and takes it out through edit warring. Thanks, Grsz11 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit warring behavior looks troubling to me and that history page has been consumed with reverts as a result of it.--Jersey Devil (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried about 3RR myself. Luckily, there's several other users there, and we've been pretty evenly undoing. Grsz11 18:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually concerned about the way the warnings read, and if they may have contributed to the problem rather than having helped. I think that working in tandem with others to avoid a 3RR block is gaming the system.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, when everybody else realizes what he's doing is wrong. It isn't working "with others to avoid a 3RR block," it's keep the article safe from a user who wants to push his POV all over the place. Grsz11 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

CarlosRodriguez has a history of disruptive editing, as his own talk page attests and the talk pages on other articles, such as Blackface, confirm. Adding Black Hitler and other stuff CarlosRodriguez has attempted to the Jeremiah Wright article really is inappropriate. TheslB (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. A quick history check of your own talk pages will reveal that you have both also been administratively warned for your edit warring on that page, and one of you has recently brought two unfounded complaints to this board in the recent past.Carlos is out of line, but some black pots are here too. Enough blame to go around for the three of you on that page--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop wasting space. This isn't about your ridiculous accusations against other users. Grsz11 19:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note, the warnings came about as a result of undoing this guys edits. Grsz11 19:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No sir, from also undoing mine without talk page consensus and generally running roughshod over WP policies and your undoing ever editor with whom you disagree no matter what page you find yourself on. You are right about Carlos, but your tag team hit jobs on editors are noteworthy on any complaint that you make.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"You are right about Carlos" — then please do not make this about me and you. TheslB (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sad that it came to this, Grsz11. Grsz11 has broken 3RR with 5-6 reverts per day. A quick look at the history page will show this: [16] CarlosRodriguez (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If they looked they can see you greatly exaggerate. Over the past 24 hours, I've undid you twice, and Fovean twice. ThesIB has also had to undo your edits. There's a difference between edit warring out content, and reverting vandalism, which is essentially what your edits have become. Grsz11 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please link to one vandalistic edit that I have made on my talk page to sustantiate you claim. The warnings that you blank on your page attest to who the real vandal is.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about Carlos. PLEASE stop wasting everybodies space and time with your rants against me. Grsz11 20:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Grsz, you have broken 3rr shamelessly and reverted most everyone's edits that don't adhere to your POV. I didn't want it to become an administrative matter, but now you've brought it here CarlosRodriguez (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, you've been warned several times about your POV edits by myself, and others. The diffs above clearly show that you are trying to push your opinion across on the article as fact. There's a difference between my reverting edits that I don't like, and reverting edits that have been discussed and warned against. Grsz11 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• And you do do both.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

All three of you, stop it now. AN/I is not the place for arguing. Wait patiently for an admin to have time to review the situation and decide if any action is necessary (unfortunately, I don't have time right now). If you really want to argue with each other, do so on your talk pages, but any incivility from any of you and you'll be blocked, regardless of the merit of your arguments. Consider this an official warning. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tango. For the reviewing admin: please note a totally uninvolved editor reverted CarlosRodriguez' similar edits yesterday and reported them as vandalism here. This led to an ANI AIV admin warning CarlosRodriguez that if the behavior continued, a block would be forthcoming. TheslB (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not being "Dense", but to which three editors do you refer, as four had weighed in in addition to a SYSOP?--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see Tango's statement above. I am not going to get into an argument with you here. TheslB (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Being able to count is not a prerequisite for being an admin. ;) --Tango (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I most respectfully deny that I asked you to. If you have anything resembling an argument, please post to your talk page which i have now added to my watchlist and I will respond there.Cordially,--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Done User blocked for 24hrs for disruption and edit warring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring by blocked User:Fredrick day

User:Fredrick day is blocked for vandalism and severe incivility. Coming in through identifiable IP, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day and Talk for that SSP page, he is edit warring with removal of his edits. See Special:Contributions/87.113.2.240.

He is attempting to call attention to my behavior through this, but what I've been doing with another blocked user would likewise be legitimate with him. Another user is blocked for various reasons, but has a history of good contributions. He is being reverted practically automatically when his IP edits are found, which is legitimate. Then, any other user who sees these edits and who wishes to take responsibility for them, may bring them back in. This is not meat puppetry, it is reviewing the edit history of a page and deciding to bring back in removed material based on the content, not on the identity of the editor.

I have reverted Fd's edits, without regard for content (as is being done in the case he refers to.) Any legitimate editor may see these edits and bring them back in, I have utterly no objection to that. I happen to see Fd's edits because he edits pages I watch; then I check his contributions and am reverting on sight. Sometimes I note this in Talk to specifically call attention to the edit so that other editors may review it.--Abd (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• I hope someone blocks his IP soon. How strange that someone who appeared to be a legitimate contributor degenerated so quickly into vandalism and trolling. It seems like what you're doing is perfectly OK. I am reviewing his contribs now to see if anything should be kept. -- Naerii 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• He's back Special:Contributions/87.113.42.143. -- Naerii 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I rolled back all but one edit from the first IP that wasn't rolled back already--the only one I didn't touch was when he reverted an obvious BLP violation. In my view, about the ONLY circumstances under which block-evading socks can't have their edits reverted on sight is when there are obvious BLP or copyright violations. Can we consider him banned and be done with it? Blueboy96 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I see no reason why their edits shouldn't be reverted on sight, but then again there's no point keeping incorrect content so there's nothing wrong with going through later and restoring any edits that are worth keeping. I seem to recall this being done in past cases? If it's against policy never mind I guess. I just feel a bit icky about restoring incorrect information and leaving it indefinitely until someone unrelated notices. -- Naerii 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine--as long as the edits aren't in any way associated with a block-evading or banned user, you can restore them manually. Blueboy96 18:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for blocking. -- Naerii 18:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks. What I'm doing is a solution to a problem that arose when User:Larry E. Jordan was blocked, but was also known for some very good contributions -- not perfect, but good seeds for articles -- in parliamentary procedure. He continued to try to make good contributions, but they were being reverted due to block evasion. Which is, of course, legitimate. After discussing this with the administrator doing most of the reversions, I came up with a solution, announced my intention to do it, waited, then started doing it. I looked for these reverted edits, reviewed them, and if they seemed solid -- I checked sources where possible, or flagged the edit if it seemed good but couldn't be immediately verified -- I brought them back in. I also listed what I was doing on the project page involved, and invited other editors to do the same, and one did, cleaning up everything I'd found. Fredrick day may be making some good contributions. So any other editor may review those edits and bring them back, if the editor is willing to take responsibility for them. I'd be careful though. This guy is positively venomous. But I'm not going to get into that. Any legitimate editor brings back his edits, I'm no longer involved in that content. (Unless it is blatant sock puppetry, another story.)

By the way, I'm pretty sure he planted that BLP violation removal, attempting to trap me with it. "See! He's removing necessary edits!"--Abd (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) As I have time, I'm listing the IPs involved on Talk for his SSP page. Note that his IP editing predated his block, he was "good hand" Fredrick day, though I didn't think him so good, and very, very "bad hand" Section 31. He was nailed when he forgot he was logged in once, and linked Section 31 with his registered account, though KMweber had already pretty much pinned him.--Abd (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

He's back again, and leaving irritating posts [17]. Someone please block Special:Contributions/87.115.12.23, though he'll be back on another IP shortly I expect. -- Naerii 19:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not a popular opinion, but...

I hesitate to point this out, because I do understand the aggravation that this banned user is causing. However, each of us has to bear in mind that we are personally responsible and liable for any edit we make. If we insert information that violates WP:BLP - for example, negative unsourced information about a person - we are responsible for doing so. It does not matter if one is reverting someone else's removal of that information, or one is inserting the negative unsourced information of one's own volition. The Wikimedia Foundation makes it pretty clear that we are on our own with respect to any edits we make to any article. The Foundation has provided user-specific information in at least one previous lawsuit without notifying the involved users, back in December 2007 IIRC. If you do not want to be personally liable for inserting negative unsourced information into an article about a living person, then don't do it, even by reverting a banned user. Our readers don't care who makes the edits, they only care that the information they read is correct. I'm sure the subjects of our articles feel the same way. Risker (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Libellous material and self-evident BLP violations should never be reinserted in an article, regardless of any other policy or procedure that might otherwise apply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No policy states it should be, even WP:BAN states "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as Neutrality, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons". That's been thrown out of the window tonight though, with unsourced claims that a living person infected multiple people with the HIV virus being added back to articles, amongst other things. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Angrymansr

This user continues to attack and harass me. His behavior isn't limited to just my talk page, or his. His edit summaries as well have been abusive and rude. He's even gone as far as changing my comments (that are on his talk page) to make me look stupid. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest going to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts first. You'll probably get a quicker response there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you in the right place? To report impolite, incivil, or difficult communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts. --Pixelface (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent, serious personal attacks by User:PetraSchelm

PetraSchelm (talk · contribs) has explicitly or implicitly accused other Wikipedians of paedophilia repeatedly. For example:

• "It looks like the people who were most vocal in getting the articles renamed "sexual attraction to children" from "sexual abuse and pedophilia" were self-identified pro-pedophile. One of them states on his userpage that his "agenda" is pederasty articles, and has claimed that 13 year old boys can consent to sex. Another, Tony Sandel, clearly identifies himself as pro-pedophile on his userpage. I don't get the impression that that they think pedophile is an insult; on the contrary that is how they identify themselves."[18] These statements are false. The userpages in question are User:Tony Sandel and User:Haiduc, and both have made clear elsewhere that they are neither paedophiles nor pro-paedophile.
• "I think you should actually read the lists which were named "Pedophila and Child Sexual Abuse in film/theatre/song/books, and have all been renamed by a small pedophile faction "sexual attraction to children in film/theatre/song/books"[19])
• "The argument for changing the name seems to be that "sexual attraction" subsumes "pedophilia and child sexual abuse." Uh, only from the perspective of pedophiles."[20])
• Etc.[21][22] [23]

The issue she is so incensed over is that several lists are named in the format of "x that portrays sexual attraction to children or adolescents," rather than "x that portrays child sexual abuse." As has been discussed on the talk pages of these articles, which Petra has neglected to use, this is so because many of the books, films, or songs do not include child sexual abuse -- the paedophile in Death in Venice, for instance, never acts on his attractions. This is clearly not pro-paedophile reasoning (though personally, I still disagree with it); Petra's attacks are unjustified.

She has continued after being reminded of our civilty policies.[24][25][26] --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's evident from Petra's contributions that she is either a sockpuppet or at the very least a single purpose account. Within just a few days of registering she's found some of our most esoteric policies, managed to nominate several articles in one of the most contentious regions of Wikipedia for deletion, and especially, articles that themselves are the result of a remarkable consensus effort between editors on both sides of the pedophilia equation; while at the same time managing to brand other editors as pedophiles or pro pedophiles, or even tolerant of child abuse. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I have left a strongly - and hopefully comprehensive - warning at her(?) talkpage below your notice of this section. While not specifically noted, it should be regarded as a final warning should the editor continue making these comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair enough, and I have also tried to explain to her why this is so and hopefully this will be the last we hear of it. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you explained to her that calling people pedophiles on flimsy grounds was generally frowned upon, but that it is acceptable to accuse them of promoting a pro-pedophile viewpoint [27]. That's very helpful of you, and certainly contributes to the atmosphere of camaraderie and peaceful discourse that surrounds those articles. May I remind you, though, that people have been blocked for exactly that (purportedly promoting a pro-pedophile viewpoint, that is), and that it might be polite to refrain from such deleterious claims as well? "Thanks," Bikasuishin (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought SqueakBox did tell her that. Regardless, if it wasn't him, it was someone else because I definitely remember someone having mentioned that. And even so, Less Heard vanU referenced it in their final warning. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean in the same way one would accuse another editor of editing in a pro-cannabis way or a pro-US army way, concentrating on the content and slant of the edits but not saying the uiser is stoned or whatever, we all have our POVs but we must not edit wikipedia to promote any POV. Indeed all I have been trying to do is get this particularly online (ie working with us constructively|) and unfortunately I seem to have failed. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced that you mean well. However, people usually don't get blocked for editing with a pro-US military viewpoint, unless, I guess, when it gets particularly egregious and disruptive. A pro-pedophile bias or any semblance thereof, on the other hand, is something that gets editors indefinitely blocked, so it might be best to exercise proper circumspection before branding a fellow editor with such a label. I'm not sure a remark like "this editor promotes a pro-pedophile viewpoint" really qualifies as "commenting on the contributions rather than the contibutor", even if it is meant that way. Anyway, sorry for this slightly off-topic comment. Bikasuishin (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, she's responded by affirming her claim that Haiduc is pro-paedophile.[28] For the record, the statement she interprets as supporting this is: "Agenda: To promote accurate and comprehensive treatment of LGBT history, in particular of pederastic homosexuality, in its sexualized as well as chaste manifestations." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This user has been consistently disruptive and unresponsive to discussion or reasoning. I too am of the opinion that he is a sock, and while I could not care less about the personal attacks the fact remains that his constant attempts to introduce a political agenda are inappropriate. As long as this kind of behavior persists unchecked it is corrosive both to the work that we are doing here and to the atmosphere of collegiality and reason that needs to be cultivated. Haiduc (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for personal attacks re this edit. See AnotherSolipsist's reference above. I've also warned that since this is a very serious accusation, next block will be significantly longer. Given the suspiciousness of the account, that should not be unreasonable. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Her block log is empty.[29] ? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Likely a bug, she is clearly blocked, see [30]. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is well that this user is blocked, but what happens to his disruptive votes in the many AfDs he has been involved in? Haiduc (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think unless it can be proven she is a sock of a banned user then they should stand as they were made before bing blocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, this is a block, with no allegations of being a banned user, the votes stand. Regardless, even if they were to be removed they'd make no difference in the outcome. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting on WP:COI

Over the last few days, editors have been discussing the "tension" between WP:COI and the principle that editors should be allowed to edit pseudonymously. One site of discussion has been on WP:COI, in relation to text stating that "Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." As was pointed out, this seems to contradict text in the same paragraph recommending that editors approach COIs directly, as well as the general practice on WP:COIN where identity is somewhat regularly discussed as necessary. Discussion of this went on for a couple of days between Crum375 and myself, with some others coming in and generally agreeing that there is a tension here which needs to be acknowledged in one form or another. Crum375 has argued in contrast that there is no tension and that discussion of COI should never involve identifying an editor who does not identify themself. Crum insisted in turn that because WP:Block states that editors may be blocked for revealing identifying information, WP:COI must state that identifying a pseudonymous editor is in all cases against basic policy. Of those discussing on the page, Joshuaz and I directly disagreed with this, while Privatemusings sought a compromise. When it became clear that views on the page were not being further developed, and that editors generally agreed that the change was necessary, I attempted to reinstate the original edit.[31] Crum reverted,[32] but Joshuaz replaced it noting agreement on the talk page.[33]

My concern is that, following this, both SlimVirgin and Jayjg arrived in the next hour to revert back to the original version. SlimVirgin had left a comment earlier but had not stayed around. Jayjg had not commented at all. Elonka then arrived and protected the page for 48 hours. The issue, of course, is that it seems inappropriate to me for two admins to arrive on a policy page and revert in this fashion without attempting to participate in talk. The general pattern of these editors working together, recently discussed on this page here, also seems relevant. I raise it here for discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan, you are forgetting that lots of editors have the policy and guideline pages on their watchlists. In addition, SV had commented several times on WT:COI prior to her recent edits. The issue is very simple: outing is prohibited. That COI allegations somehow trump the blocking policy which prohibits outing, is not anchored in any policy or guideline. There is a wide consensus on WP that outing is unacceptable, and it conforms to the existing policies and guidelines. I don't think in any case that ANI is the place to discuss policies, but your assumption that people must be actively engaged in talk page discussion prior to preventing edits that they see as contradictory to long standing policy is simply wrong. Crum375 (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I raised the policy issue here only so far as is necessary for background. In my view, if editors have a history of working very closely together across unrelated pages, they should take particular care not to show up and revert for each other without any comment on the talk page. I think this is particularly the case if the discussion has been quite involved as it's been here. Mackan79 (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence of any such "consensus" that "outing is prohibited" as alleged by Crum375. One relatively small group of users (SlimVirgin, Crum375, JzG, and a couple of others) favor this position. Another relatively small group of users (Dan T. and Cla68 come to mind here) object to that interpretation of policy. The vast majority of Wikipedians don't really give a damn. That is pretty much the definition of no consensus. *** Crotalus *** 02:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Mackan79 that it's a bad idea for an editor to just show up and revert, without participating at talk. When I saw that the page was getting yanked back and forth, I took a look at the talkpage, could not see a clear consensus either way, and opted to simply protect the page. I am offering no opinion on which version of wording is better, but edit-warring about it is not the way to go. --Elonka 05:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Crotalus, there is certainly also an issue with Crum375's tendency to frame issues in ways that seem to justify any amount of reverting. This happened recently in an arbcom case, where Crum was blocked after first reverting the evidence page 8 times against multiple editors and admins entirely by themself,[34] without ever stopping to discuss the issue (and causing a minor uproar), and then returning after the page was unprotected to do this again.[35] Crum was blocked for this by the ArbCom clerk, despite the lone claim that it was a BLP issue. Here, Crum managed to claim that removing the disputed statement about "basic policy" was itself a violation of policy and therefore also beyond community consensus, justifying Crum in reverting twice against two editors and then a third time after SV and Jayjg arrived. I don't know how JoshuaZ feels about the issue, but all of this was after he noted that Crum was becoming tendentious,[36] and I noted that believing you alone are right does not justify continual reverting.[37] It seems to me someone might clarify to Crum375 that this approach isn't generally considered productive. Mackan79 (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking an absolute stance either way at this time. There are times when one may draw a reasonable inference that an editor is conencted with a subject, and that does not necessarily violate their privacy, but we should be absolutely firm that publishing anything that is not trivially available from a user's own comments is at the very least extremely problematic. Outing pseudonymous individuals as a way of gaining an advantage in a content dispute, or in revenge for your POV failing to achieve consensus, is unlikely to have any good result. I don't think we need new policy to cover this, I think judicious application of Clue should be sufficient. Inferring a connection between User:BigJim and his article Big Jim's Steak House would hardly qualify as "outing". The most obvious example I can see here is user:THF, who asserted that if he had not revealed his RWI, no COI allegation would have been made. I dispute that, as his edits were often tendentious. I also have a problem with anybody who is more active in improving Wikipedia Review than improving Wikipedia making any kind of comment about outing, especially when said person seems to dispute the existence of harassment of editors. If he'd like to answer my 3am hang-up calls from a certain banned user, he's more than welcome. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about Dan Tobias; he has already answered your accusations that he supposedly disputes the existence of harassment. --Random832 (contribs) 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, this is similar to what people were saying on the page. If your last comment is directed at me, however, I can't be sure how much of the page you read. I think harassment is a serious concern here, specifically the serious concern, which isn't furthered by saying we can't discuss obvious conflicts, even as we do. I think other problems are also caused by that approach. But that's the policy issue, which isn't what I intended to raise. We could tie it to even bigger issues of who is on the right side of what; I think it's fair, however, simply to raise whether editors who almost constantly work together should show up and revert for each other in this way. It's a difficult issue, yes, but I don't think one that benefits from tag team revert warring. Mackan79 (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, I had already commented on this exact issue in quite a few places, including two different noticeboards (e.g. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Policy_question, [38]), as you were well aware. It's not my fault if you and others try to spread your attempts to unilaterally overturn policy over multiple venues and multiple policy and guideline pages, and then complain when I haven't shown up to repeat my objections at the new spot chosen to re-hash this. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that we had been discussing a specific policy issue for three days with Crum375 as the lone dissenter on the page, and when Crum375 was reverted by a second editor, both you and SlimVirgin appeared not on the talk page, but by adding two additional reverts. The fact that the page was then protected should, I'd think, indicate to you that this is not appropriate editing; should an admin need to enter a page to protect it due to the actions of two other admins? I don't think they should. Mackan79 (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think editors should try to make guidelines contradict policies, nor pretend that the edit wars they start when attempting to do so are someone else's fault, nor pretend that because those admins only protest these policy-violating changes in 4 out of the 5 places they were raised, it means they don't object to them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, is the idea really that if you object to an edit and you think you've offered reasons elsewhere, then you can ignore discussion and revert at will? If I went around adding second third or fourth reverts for friends because I'd expressed my opinion elsewhere, you wouldn't have a problem? If editors on the page wanted to proceed, were we expected to go find you on your talk page and offer a personal invitation that you join the discussion? I would think at some point you'd realize the problem with this approach. Mackan79 (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where this belongs - USERPAGE: EBDCM

Had it on my watchlist to see the outcome of the block (not sure what happened to the ANI thread on it?). I noticed that today QuackGuru erased the users userpage completely. EBDCM noted on his talk page that he is taking a wikibreak until monday. I don't think we should be erasing his userpage in the meantime - or is this normal when someone is blocked? (diff) DigitalC (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If he's been indefed then he's persona non grata. Blanking a user's page isn't unusual. HalfShadow (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Some previous discussion has been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive394#User talk:EBDCM unblock review. --Newbyguesses (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It is normal practice to put an indef-template on a userpage for an indef-blocked editor. EBDCM is being incivil again by claiming it was done in poor taste. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Live mirror

Sorry, wasn't sure where to report this. [39] appears to be a live mirror. Stevage 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's material is freely available per the GNU license, what is particulary relevant about this mirror? - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be "live", based on the frequency of updates. Anyway, looks to have already been reported at meta. Stevage 04:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

C.H.Q., the content is free but the bandwidth and server space are not. It is recommended that sites wishing to use our content do so by storing a static copy of the pages they want, or by importing a database dump if they want to use numerous (or all) articles. — CharlotteWebb 03:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I know vote soliciting is frowned on, guidance please

User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch I know vote soliciting is frowned upon. Is there a policy or guideline that addresses vote soliciting? An essay? If so, could someone direct my attention to it? I looked. I can't find it.

If not, let me lay out the disturbing circumstances.

Two years or so ago a nominator admonished me for leaving some heads-up on the talk pages of some people who said, "if another article like this gets nominated, let me know". I didn't know this was frowned upon. And I haven't done it since. The nominator who admonished me showed me how to use the deletion sorting project.

Now, if I understand this issue, the use of the deletion sorting project is not considered vote soliciting because it is conducted openly and transparently. In particular the person who places a note about the deletion, or whatever, on the deletion sorting page, they put a link back to the deletion sorting page in the forum. I found someone I disagree with has used a similar mechanism, to draw the attention of people to a formal procedure discussion, but, in this case, they did so silently, and did not add a link back to their watch page in the discussion. I am concerned because this does not seem open and transparent to me.

Note: I did not mention the name of my correspondent, or the venue of the discussion, on purpose, because I am sure regular readers here would appreciate that discussion not slopping over here.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You could read up on WP:CANVASS and WP:MEAT. I'll check back in an hour or so, got to go to class. Grsz11 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I transcluded it into this section. Your starter for ten and no conferring: which way are we asking you to vote in each of the debates? Bonus points if you can spot the words "keep" or "delete" anywhere in the template. Geo Swan seems to be sore that Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam was deleted and looks set to be endorsed, and that Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani is vulnerable to a similar deletion, with a majority for keep being overwhelmed by WP:BLP and the fact that the sources are not about the subject but about the processes in which he has been involved. As I said in the close of the Ajam debate, keep !votes adequately establish that the detention camp, and the detention of this individual, are notable, but not that the detention of this individual is notable individually, distinct from other detainees, and not that the detainee is himself notable. No significant sources independent of the detention are provided. The knockout blow in the Ajam case is the lack of any secondary biographical sources, and the same applies for most of the Gitmo detainees. Lots of articles about the camp, the perfectly valid criticisms of the US government for engaging in detention without trial and abrogating its responsibilities under the Geneva Convention, but no actual biographical sources primarily about the individual detainees. DGG says at deletion review that this accurately reflects consensus, but in his view consensus is wrong. I can entirely accept that there are people who accept while disagreeing with consensus that living individuals notable only for one event, should be covered as the event not as biographies. We can disagree on this in civil terms, one of the many philosophical debates on Wikipedia at any one time. Still and all, it seems that Geo Swan considers that the consensus is wrong and listing debates related to the consensus is also wrong. That is a more contentious view. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you did it the old-fashioned way, and not on a protected sandbox page in Doc's user-space, this practice might not be so poorly received. Something like {{subst:delsort|Living people}}, i.e.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.

would blend in perfectly with the others and nobody would care too much. Amid the growing BLP pandemonium I'm surprised this hasn't been created already. — CharlotteWebb 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

All the Crazy™

Heya, I am dealing with some rather "interesting edits" in the Fitna article. Some pretty aggressive behavior in the article discussion page, which is translating to some edit-warring in the article. I was going to request semi-protection as there appears to be some sock-farming going on there. Aside from the socking, a lot ofthe folk contributing there are pretty new, and its a bit Wild West-y there. A wikiquette alert report was filed (against me) complaining about my Obtructionist behavior in not allowing flagicons and whatnot, and I am increasingly of the opinion that the tone of the article discussion is being run on caffeine and aggro, and maybe even some good, old-fashioned oversensitivity. Maybe someone with deep boots could one-stop-assist with a semi-protection tag and a bit of that calming balm of an admin post suggesting folk cool their jets? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the conversation between you and the IP. Protection would be the worst action here, as it would prevent the IP from editing - and other editors have opined that it's a dispute between you and the IP. Your concerns about the use of a sock are valid, because one editor is using several IP addys to edit the article. His admission of such does not alleviate him from all responsibility because it is very confusing for all editors involved. Feel free to file a sock-report and if you are not happy with my unwillingness to protect the page, you can go to WP:RFPP. Other than that, I don't see a need for administrative action. the_undertow ^talk 18:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Consistent edit warring

 Done

User:CarlosRodriguez has made several identical edits over the course of the last two days. He's been warned about these edits, that serve to push his POV by numerous users: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. Thanks, Grsz11 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this the same issue as WP:ANI#User:CarlosRodriguez (above)? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that didn't get attention because another user turned it into an attack against myself and other user who was trying to show support for the complaint. It was resolved. Grsz11 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

IP 71.138.49.121

Resolved

 – Blocked for one month Herostratus (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This user is perhaps the single most persistent person I've come accross. Numerous attempts of contacting him have been made (with little or no result), he has been warned numerous times, and he has been blocked numerous times (check e.g. User_talk:71.138.49.102, User_talk:70.137.65.163, User_talk:Markfish, User_talk:70.230.215.18, User_talk:71.134.211.156, and User_talk:69.232.66.4). Recently, under IP 71.138.49.121, he has been active on Greg Bahnsen ([48], [49], [50], [51], [52]), eventually leading to a block ([53]), and it appears he has kept away from that article since. He is still very active in another article, cichlid, which he first set his eye on more than a year (!) ago. For a small intro into the situation regarding this and associated articles, check this on the talk page for WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, and this on the talk page for cichlid. While the issue of changing numbers in cichlid may seem like a small thing, his persistent doing so without being willing to provinde any sources at all (indeed, changing the numbers within a fully referenced sentence, making it appear as if "his version" was supported by the ref's) has also been at least part of the reason for valuable contributors just loosing interest in the article, as indeed evident by the abandonement of List of things to do prior to going to FA. Following recent changes by him in early March ([54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] and [60]), leading to several warnings ([61] (two warnings there), and [62]), and eventually the article was semi-protected ([63]). Following this, I forwarded a note saying I was fully willing to add "his number" if he could provide a reference (see entire section in green here), but as usual this has been met with complete silence from his side. Unfortunately, just a few hours after the one month semi-protection ended, he returned ([64]), and has been going on from there ([65], and [66]) despite warnings ([67], and [68]). How can we deal with this? The semi-protection of cichlid evidently did not stop him, and based on the timing of his edit after it was lifted, one can only suspect he simply was waiting for that day. The temporary block seems to have resulted in him keeping away from the Greg Bahnsen article, and as this most recent IP seems fairly stabil (he evidently has had it for at least a month, since March 4 ([69])), I therefore request a temporary block of this IP. Alternatively, are IP range bans from certain articles possible (as I suggested here)? RN1970 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• If the lack of response indicates that I am posting this in the wrong place or doing something wrong, I would greatly appreciate a hint from a more experianced wikipedian (I'm still fairly new at this). Since my last post, he has been there again. RN1970 (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No this is fine. This is a very odd case, but this kind of vandalism is insidious. Blocked for a month. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Covington and Covington's Customs

Jerry Covington has been editing disruptively, using all of the following user accounts in the past few hours:

• Covingtons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BanThisNameillMake10More (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.127.109.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.93.183.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Random667 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He has been edit warring on Jerry Covington with various user names, and has been recreating Covington's Customs over and over again, despite the fact that it keeps getting speedied. Two of his accounts have already been permanently blocked, but much more drastic action is required here. Qworty (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected Covington's Customs for a while to prevent recreation. seicer | talk | contribs 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also indef. blocked Random667 for recreation of other blocked accounts. seicer | talk | contribs 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I am not sure it is Covington himself, an employee, or a fan, but yes, whoever it is, they have been edit warring and generally being disruptive. Maybe worthwhile protecting Jerry Covington too for a short period. – ukexpat (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• That article sucks very badly. Hopefully any fix will not prevent it being improved, preferably by completely rewriting. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Return of problem editor A B Pepper

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 1 month

A B Pepper has been a problem editor off and on over at Christian views about women. He's very disruptive, uncivil, and inserts POV against consensus into articles. He received a 3-month block followed by an indefinite one for this behavior [70].

He's recently shown up again as IP 97.88.222.103. His behavior and POV are identical. For an example, compare this edit from the IP with the edit summary from one of A B Pepper's old edits here.

This guy will probably continue to be a problem off-and-on for a while. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/A B Pepper. 75.132.95.79 is also blocked as this editor. Reviewing the history, I agree that this editor is now using IP 97.88.222.103. This version of their deleted talk page (admins only) expresses their reason for being here, and Durova's comment on it explains the behavior issues that have recurred. I'm not sure what, if anything, we can effectively do about this editor. We can play whack-a-mole every so often when he or she makes his or her identity clear. Unless they learn to avoid the personal attacks, by the time the identity is clear there will also be reason to block. Can anyone think of a way to mentor this editor? Or are we doomed to another whack-a-mole game? In the meantime, blocked. GRBerry 20:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I doubt he could be convinced to accept mentoring. His behavior leads me to believe he's not as interested in building an encyclopedia as he is in proving his superiority to everyone else. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If he turns up on that IP once the block expires, just block it again for 6 months. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User 216.125.163.43

Resolved

 – Schoolblocked 2 months

User_talk:216.125.163.43

Has been repeatedly blocked in the past and has started on a new string of vandal edits. Dialectric (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Maternity clothing

I've been reverting edits to Pregnancy and Mother by Danmasri (talk · contribs) and 71.249.69.142 (talk · contribs) that added Maternity clothing to the See Also sections. At first it was annoying. Then I determined that maternity clothing was just an advertisement for, guess what, maternity clothing retailers. I put that up for speedy delete. But I'm going to get hit for WP:3RR on Mother, because I keep making the same edit. Can someone block these two (I assume they're sockpuppets of each other), delete the Maternity clothing article, and let me go back to editing? Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend not to hang around this page very much, but I had to find out what the heck you were doing with maternity clothing, Orangemarlin.  :-) Glad to see it's merely an edit war with spammers. I'll keep Mother on my watchlist too. Risker (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the speedy worked. I doubt if anyone would clobber you on WP:3RR for reverting persistent addition of links to, essentially, spam. However, I'll watch Mother, if not Watch with Mother. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to know that AN/I watchers have a sense of humor. Do I dare click on some of these links? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

On a more serious note, why do we not have a proper article about maternity clothing? — CharlotteWebb 23:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should we? It's not important in either Star Trek or Pokemon. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought we did: Loose Fit and Baggy Trousers for a start. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, don't come whining to us when a pregnant admin blocks you for life.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to removal of spam (Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions). But I suppose there's no harm in being on the safe side. James086^{Talk | Email} 23:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've begun a stub and will edit it as time allows. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Amjikian

I think calling a user a 'douche bag' is enough for a indef block, he was reported before by me and another user before. He is most likely a troll, who is not helping wikipedia but adding POV. Especially regarding the Armenian Genocide, he was trying to insert false images...

personal attack newest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Myotis&diff=prev&oldid=203726600 --Namsos (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have left a warning on his talk page. Cultural differences, and that he's a new editor, may mean that he does not understand the gravity of this, so I am giving the benefit of the doubt. However, he is on notice. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't add notice to user talk due to spam blacklist

Resolved

I can't add the {{subst:di-replaceable fair use-notice|1=Lead acid cell.jpg}} ~~~~ to the uploaders page. It trigers a spam bot? (See image:Lead acid cell.jpg for more details) --CyclePat (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the message I get:

The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save. If you are attempting a section edit, note that this block may even be due to spam links in other sections. Blacklists are maintained both locally and globally. Before proceeding, please review both lists to determine which one (or both) are affecting you. You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the local or global spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to request that a specific link be allowed without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the local spam whitelist talk page. The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted.

Return to User talk:JustinWick.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JustinWick" --CyclePat (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Humm... Aparently that spam bot didn't even want to let me add a link to this page. What is this page? --CyclePat (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com was posted on the page in question. I've broken the link with a space so you can be free to post again. Next time when you get that warning, edit the page and do a Ctrl+F for the site in question. Best, shoy 03:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shoy. Thank you. You've been a great help. --CyclePat (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, the spam blacklist behaved unintelligently when the offending link is not part of the section you are editing or creating, so to remove it you kinda have to copy the comment you were about to save, then open an edit window for the entire page so you can look for and remove the "spam" link while posting your comment. I'm sure there's at least a few bug reports about this. — CharlotteWebb 03:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jacker45

This is one of those gray areas that isn't really vandalism, but also not outright intentional disruption. I think we're talking more clueless than malicious. This user has been creating contentless stubs about albums by a heavy metal band, one with an article. The articles are nothing more than track listings in some cases, taxoboxes and track listings in others. He/she keeps removing deletion notices and doesn't respond to anyone's concerns whatsoever. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

An article with an infobox and a track listing is not "content-less". Most articles do start as stubs, please be patient. — CharlotteWebb 03:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Meanwhile after a look at the user's talk page, the apparent copyright violations, 3rr and unwillingness to respond seem to be trying editors' patience. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that adding links to pages here might help you out in the future. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User "A bad cat" should be stopped before it's too late!

The user "A bad cat" has vandalized the Japan article, but quickly undone it. He also vandalized the Treo 90 article of which I have not removed all damage but can be seen in the history. Much damage has been caused already and I suggest that he be stopped before more damage occurs. Ginbot86 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked as vandalism-only account --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

Ku Klux Klan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

God Save the South (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

GordonUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

This needs some uninvolved admin eyes. My involvement is that I declined an {{unblock}} request from User:GordonUS, who had been blocked for 3RR. Today, I removed some racist POV pushing from the article. User:God Save the South, who has uploaded photos that he took at several Klan rallies and thus presumably an inference can be drawn there, added on several occasions today some pro-KKK POV to the aforementioned article. It was removed by several editors including me. I made a 3RR report and the user was blocked by User:Rudget for 48 hours. I would think that would be a non-controversial block. User:Hersfold removed that block without discussing it in any way - before or after - with the blocking admin and imposed instead a 48 hour article ban. He then threatened to block User:Baegis, a valued editor in good standing, for questioning this action. This needs review all around - the unblock needs review and admins are needed to keep an eye on the article to keep it from being whitewashed. --B (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article until these disputes can be sorted out. I removed some KKK associations with the Nazi's yesterday on the basis that they were wholly uncited (edit warring had occurred previously on that topic), and I returned to the article today for another review and found it to be full of uncited original research... and a lot of pro-KKK POV. This crap is kind of getting old, so protected it shall be until the edits can be fully discussed. seicer | talk | contribs 05:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to tell that I was on the unblock IRC chan when the User:God Save the South made his unblock request. Rudget definitely sought input from us before lifting the block. The spirit was that since the user was blocked for not communicating, and was requesting unblock for being able to edit the talk page of the article (the unblock request was clearly implying he wouldn't edit the KKK article during the remaining time of the block), it was a win-win situation considering the amount of edits that were happening on this page (since the block was made to prevent this user from editing the article). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I think you meant I sought input before lifting the block - which I did. Lucas has made a good summary of the reasons for the unblock, which I have further elaborated on here. I would also note that I was not informed of the opening of this thread. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note for any still concerned, hours after the situation seemed to have cooled off, OrangeMarlin has been blocked by Firsfron (link to block log). Happily, the user:God save the whatever, is free to do as he pleases (well, maybe he'll abide by the gentlemen's agreement not to edit the KKK article for the next few hours). That is all, R. Baley (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• This was an extraordinarily ill-considered block, which I have reversed per WP:CDB and just plain common sense. The situation was gradually winding down and a block such as this would only serve to revive the flames. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The situation was certainly not "winding down"; as little as an hour ago OM was still hurling insults at the unblocking admin. However, if a block made less than an hour after the last insult would "fan the flames", it should be reversed. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As for me, I'm trying to decide what was more extraordinarily ill-considered, Hersfold's unblock or Firsfron's block... El_C 06:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read the talkpages involved and I don't see OM "hurling insults" at anybody. He certainly seems aggrieved, but blocking him for saying that a member of the KKK is a racist would probably be upsetting to anybody. This looks like a simple statement of fact, rather than an insult, since I would think that by definition all members of the KKK are racists. Its like blocking somebody for saying that Nazis are antisemitic. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't see this, Tim? It says "You support racism. You get neither an apology or retraction, so keep your racist supporting attitudes off my user page, please". That is directed at Hersford, not the KKK member. I certainly wouldn't block someone for writing that a KKK member was racist. I wasn't the only one who thought some of OM's comments were over the top. Krimpet said so, here. Blake Kite said so here and here. Shoemaker said so here. Cas tried to calm him down here.

OM responded to Hersfold with "So the loser group of editors who elected you in the first place is going to recall you. You make me laugh. How about you voluntarily resign and let us re-elect you? Oh, you're too much of a coward to do that? You'd rather attack me instead? Demand an apology? You make me laugh. I pity your moral reasoning." These were clear personal attacks, directed at Hersford (who is not the KKK member), after repeated warnings.

I am well aware that OM is a popular and charismatic editor, but he was asked to step back many times and chose to continue repeatedly personally attacking Hersfold with "coward", "racist", etc. It went too far. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

breeched name

Resolved

 – User blocked. GlassCobra 17:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My user name has been hacked. It says i editted something three days ago. Well, the only problem is i have been away from my computer for a week. I believe user named Jakew is probably responsible. I think he had problems with my neighbor and he's taking it out on me. I swear! I havent even been home for a week yet it says i editted something on april 5. This is IMPOSSIBLE. What do i do? I already changed my password. Mayday2010 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming your story is reliable, there's nothing much for admins to do, here. You're responsible for the security of your machine and your account. If your account's been compromised, changing your password is one step; you may also want to disable any "remember me" features or otherwise protect your physical security. Mostly, though, take this as a lesson learned and be more careful in the future. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, make sure that the user who broke into your account can't get a new password e-mailed to him/her. Open your preferences, and make sure that if there's an e-mail listed - that it's an e-mail under your control. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll also want to secure your wireless network using WPA (not WEP) if you haven't done so already. Additionally, avoid public wireless networks when possible. If you do not do so, someone can hijack your session by sniffing for your session cookies and/or sniffing your login information. --slakr^\ talk / 11:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is slightly confusing, because eleven minutes before you wrote the above message, you made an edit in which you said that you did make those edits. Five minutes after that, you deleted that message, and then a minute later you left another message for the same user saying that you didn't. Perhaps you could clarify the situation? Jakew (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mayday2010, I also don't see where User:Jakew harrassed you - perhaps you could point that out? Because at the moment my finger is hovering over the block button for that edit. Black Kite 12:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also point to a similarity between the edit summaries of Mayday2010 and User:70.114.38.167 - the use of tildes in the summary. I wonder if there should be a RFCU between Mayday2010 and the ip, and Jakew (just to be on the safe side). I am not inclined to get further involved in this, since I am considerably irritated by the messages now on my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of good faith we're assuming here. User:Mayday2010 and User:70.114.38.167 are so obviously the same person, and so obviously out to harrass JakeW, that the only reason I'm not blocking Mayday2010 indef myself is that several admins with more experience than me have reviewed the situation and declined to do so. Please review the early history of User talk:Mayday2010; they were caught in 70.114.38.167's autoblock, and multiple admins declined the unblock request; I don't have time to wade thru the block logs to figure out how Mayday actually got someone to undo the autoblock, or who the unblocking admin was, but before I leave WP for the day, my suggestion is to block the sockpuppet. Not only is it a sock, but it's being used to harass. --barneca (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'm going to trust my instincts. I'm blocking Mayday2010 indef. as a harassing sockpuppet. Anyone who thinks there's more than a 0.1% chance Mayday and the IP are not the same person is welcome to revert without discussing it with me; I'll be offline for several hours. --barneca (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you were correct to do so - I didn't do this earlier since I was peering through a red mist, and I didn't want to make a mistake. Thanks for your actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I did not see this yesterday. This was the correct decision to indef block. I made the original block on the ip for harassment several weeks ago. Mayday's edits on site are not compatible with the email explanation he sent me and the comments on my talk page when he started this new account. After he started editing, I wanted to give him enough rope to make it perfectly clear he was here to disrupt. Now we know and will act accordingly in the future. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flo, at the risk of exposing my ignorance to a wider audience, where is the log of your unblock? I looked yesterday so I could talk with whoever unblocked Mayday's account originally, but couldn't find it in the usual place. Anyway, glad you concur; I would have left you a courtesy note if I had been able to find the right log entry. --barneca (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not I! ;-) I did not unblock this account. I was watching it after he started it and emailed me that it was blocked from editing and said it was an unfortunate mistake. After he left a post on my talk page his first edits were okay, so I decided to watch until he showed his intent. From my cu today, he Edited from a differnet ip. The original block of the ip is still in place. Thanks for promptly blocking this account when it was clear that he was here to make trouble. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki linkbot removing valid links

Vina-iwbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is deleting a large number of valid interwiki links (see [71], [72], [73], etc.) in its attempt to remove deadlinks. I have left a message for its owner at zh.wiki, but someone here should shut it off before it does any further damage. --Dynaflow babble 03:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I confirmed two examples of interwiki links just removed that are valid links, so I blocked the bot. Left a message for the owner. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked after discussion. User:Vina will run the bot without '-force' so it will not remove any links. EdJohnston (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Angry Video Game Nerd/Nostalgia Critic

A user named DevinCook keeps deleting all mention of the Nostalgia Critic on the Angry Video Game Nerd's page. While I certainly don't think the NC is nearly popular enough to deserve his own page, the fact that the AVGN has discussed him with third parties (meaning he was NOT simply responding to a fan) makes him seem relevant enough to deserve at least passing mention. Can I please get an Administrators opinion on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.93.2 (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, and on another note, the AVGN has acknowledged that he is a fan of the NC. This is certainly relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.93.2 (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes are outside the remit of this board. Talk with DevinCook. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 09:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

DataTreasury and related articles

Resolved

DataTreasury are a company who patented some electronic check system or something. There's a lot of lobbying going on at the moment, it seems, to do with whether banks should be exempt from infringement claims against such patents. This lobbying has found its way onto Wikipedia, in my view, with edits to that article and the Check 21 Act article which pushed an overly negative view of the officers of the company, DataTreasury.

User 66.65.156.251 has admitted to being a lobbyist, or at least somehow connected with this whole issue and I've managed to persuade them not to edit the article in view of a COI. However, I now wish I'd also warned them about making personal attacks since this editor has consistently done so against any editor who makes edits they don't like.

Here are some of the edits and users in question:

• User:Nowa [74]
• User:Edcolins [75]
• User:GDallimore [76]

I've already sought help from BIO of LP related people to try to keep the article neutral at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Request_for_assistance

However, this anon editor's edits are becoming disruptive.

Can an admin please cast an eye over all this and decide whether 66.65.156.251 should be warned against disruption and or blocked. GDallimore (Talk) 07:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe these edits could concieveably qualify as personal attacks - the IP seems to be suggesting the three editors above have a conflict of interest. I can't tell if these accusations are baseless or true, but they aren't personal attacks, or even particularly disruptive. I will ask the IP to raise his concerns at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Neıl ☎ 09:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

He's not suggesting, he's accusing without grounds. That's a big difference. The issue with EdColins may have been a COI issue, but then the attacks against myself and Nowa were simply based on our affiliations with Ed, and NPA says: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views".

If you can't recognise that this editor is being agressive, rude and disruptive, you need to look at the article talk page more carefully. The disruptive edit is the one I linked to under "disruptive". GDallimore (Talk) 10:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hence I have asked him to take his concerns to the COI noticeboard where they can be assessed - this is better than unproductive toing and froing on the article talk page. Neıl ☎ 10:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please look again. This anon IP has just woken up and as well as shouting on mine and his own talk page about my impartiality has been undoing edits removing unrefenced material and vandalism. This is clearly disruptive, he acknowledges he is a lobbyist and therefore there is a clear COI on his part (not anyone who is accusing of bias) and action really needs to be taken. GDallimore (Talk) 15:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for disruption. I told him to take it to the COI noticeboard, he chose not to. It's a static IP, so if he continues, the blocks will get longer. I hope this will make him use the noticeboard as he was asked. Neıl ☎ 17:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it's much appreciated. Although I still think that advising a self-confessed professional lobbyist to take his grievances to the COI board is an unusual tactic... GDallimore (Talk) 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we would rather that than see them edit the article. They can give their grievances, note that they do have a conflict of interest (the fact the IP did reveal their COI is what inclined me to give them some benefit of the doubt initially), and ask for completely uninvolved parties to investigate. Neıl ☎ 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I can understand that. Thanks again and happy editing. GDallimore (Talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat from Lowrider Editor (talk · contribs)

Just a heads-up concerning a legal threat made here. I have blocked the user in question, per WP:NLT. The user in question appears to feel aggrieved that the article in question was deleted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that talkpage be deleted under CSD G8? SQL^{Query me!} 10:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it should. Just noticed its recreation on my watchlist. Thought it best to bring it to attention here first. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a 100% sure that this guy is another one of Serio's socks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but is a legal threat from someone who talks like an ese credible? ^_^ JuJube (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is going on

Resolved

 – AfD and DRV are elsewhere.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future timeline of Earth - can anyone tell what is the reason behind this AfD. On the other hand Timeline of the future in forecasts is indiscriminate collection of information because it does not focus in any particular topic, it is a hodge podge ranging from events in sports to space. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the future in forecasts everyone is saying the article is not indiscriminate collection. When these craps will go and when the good article will come. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for incidents requiring administrator attention. If you have an opinion on an article at AFD, then the correct place to voice that opinion is on the relevant AFD discussion page, which you can find here. Neıl ☎ 11:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite follow your question here. It looks like both articles were brought to AfD in good faith and the first article you mention was closed with a merge and redirect, not a delete. If you have an issue with the procedure used to determine consensus you can bring the first article to WP:DRV (deletion review) but keep in mind that deletion review is not a forum to continue the arguments posted on the AfD, it's intended to review how the consensus was reached.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat to wikipedia

User:Reneeholle has continued to make legal threats not only against myself [77], but this time it is wikipedia itself.[78]. This is in addition to calling people mad [79]. User:Reneeholle has clear conflict of interest with the subject,[80],[81] I am trying to work on, [82], She has nominated the temp page, in my user-space, for speedy deletion initially, when the request was rejected [83], she tagged the page for MfD [84]. Now Sethie is not letting me do any work in my own user-space., and is simply reverting any work that i am trying to do in my own user-space.[85], [86],[87][88]. This is done while ignoring advice of neutral observers, at this notice-board itself [89].--talk-to-me! (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

fwiw, those first two aren't legal threats. Saying, "I think that leaving this material up exposes Wikipedia to legal action" is different from saying "I am going to take legal action against Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• More Wikilawyering from Cult Free World. I see evidence of obsession and POV conflict here, but it's not from "everybody else". Guy (Help!) 12:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This should help!!--talk-to-me! (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There's been a lot of commotion on this matter, and I think I've been punk'd. Bearian (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Security tags

Resolved

 – semi protected for 24 hours Gwernol 12:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone maybe semi this article for an hour or so? It seems to have attracted a whole slew of children on IPs intent on adding colorful but useless content. Thanks. Loren.wilton (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. The best place to request protection is WP:RFPP rather than here, just for future reference. Gwernol 12:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Threat posted

Resolved

See last edit to Commonwealth of Nations Wanderer57 (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Given that the previous edit from that source was "X is gay" I think it's probably best ignored. It's been reverted now. Black Kite 13:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note that a diff (such as this one) is always helpful -- what you see as the last edit may no longer be such when someone else investigates. — Lomn 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that caught me too because I glanced at the history and thought those 2 IPs were the same, but since they weren't, the rollback didn't work. I edit conflicted with you as I fixed it :) Black Kite 13:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I working on the theory that I should report threats and warnings even if they "seem trivial". My apologies. I know how to make a diff but forget to.

When there are two IPs as close as 80.249.49.87 and 80.249.49.104, does that mean they are from the same place? Wanderer57 (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually, but not always. These two are both from the same educational establishment in Birmingham. Black Kite 13:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are from the same block. You can use the WHOIS at the bottom of the IP talkpage to check. In this case they are part of the Birmingham Grid for Learning and I have tagged them as such. The BGFL is a proxy for a large number of schools in the Birmingham area by the way (I know from personal experience). Woody (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin help needed

I've got an editor adding unsourced and own POV but I'm not a person into edit wars. I need an Admin to check out edits by User:Jirrma at Kununurra, Western Australia edit history. Bidgee (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that Jirrma (talk · contribs) might be Yarrelali (talk · contribs). While Jirrma is a new user, one of the user's edits claims to be the restoration of a correction made by this user a long time ago. Looking through the article history, I found this similar edit over a year ago by Yarrelali, this user's only edit. Jirrma's concern is that the source given is incorrect: given that the source is a newspaper holiday guide, the user might be right (I don't know). Even so, the use of multiple accounts is another problem. Still, I would be inclined to put this down to inexperience.52 Pickup (deal) 13:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a final warning and an explanation on this editor's talk page, and will also keep an eyeon this article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bidgee has since placed additional supporting references, so my benefit of the doubt has evaporated. Note also that Jirrma has made no edits anywhere else apart from this article. - 52 Pickup (deal) 13:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

He could simply have lost the password to the other account, I don't see the use of "multiple accounts" as an indicator of malice in this case. --Random832 (contribs) 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The user claims to be the author of one of the references at Miriwoong language - maybe someone could look at those texts to see? The "additional supporting references" could simply all be repeating the same misconception. --Random832 (contribs) 14:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No no, I don't see any malice here in terms of multiple accounts, just inexperience. Until we have references supporting the contrary, we must unfortunately go with what is already there, even if it may in fact turn out to be wrong. - 52 Pickup (deal) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone should try to find a copy of that thesis he mentions. I'm just saying that it seems just as likely that the articles (three holiday guides aren't really a better source than one for this) are wrong. I think part of this is a systemic bias against print sources - the reference he's probably referring to (Kofod, F. M. (1978). "The Miriwung language (East Kimberley): a phonological and morphological study".) isn't available online, so less academic and less accurate online sources are "preferred" as the path of least resistance. --Random832 (contribs) 14:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

After some long searching I've found a source from the Western Australian Government website Gunanurang: (Kununurra) Big River. Anyone wish to use this as a source? Bidgee (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is much better. Since the report contains a sizeable list of translations at the very end and gives credit to the traditional owners in the Kununurra area for their assistance in the preparation of this document, this suggests that the translation of Kununurra to "Big River" is correct. 52 Pickup (deal) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've fixed it up using the source from above. Wasn't easy finding the source but happy it's found. Bidgee (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bandit5257

Bandit5257 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added a section on past personalities to WVVA, despite consensus among established editors on TV station articles that such a section really isn't appropriate for such a small station (it is the NBC affiliate in the 155th market) unless someone who worked there made it really big somewhere else or had a really long tenure at the station. Despite attempts by Rollosmokes (talk · contribs) and myself to explain this to her, she appears to have no intention of abiding by said consensus and continues to edit-war on the article rather than discuss on the talk page. I would block her myself, but seeing as I reverted one of her edits I'm not sure if that's appropriate (newbie admin squeamishness, I know). Nonetheless, I don't think we should let anyone who doesn't think consensus applies to them continue to edit, and ask that some uninvolved admin block her to give her time to understand how Wikipedia works. Blueboy96 15:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like FisherQueen has given Bandit5257 a final warning about edit wars. I have also watchlisted his talk page. If the problems continue, a disruption-stopping block will be issued. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; attention-span issues. Yes, a block would be fine, though I thought I'd try confirming that she really can't continue edit-warring and warning her that a block was imminent; I have the article in question on my watchlist now and she should definitely be blocked if she reverts again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

She now claims to be leaving. Grain of salt, of course, but I've watchlisted as well. We'll see what happens. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, well ... it was just added back by IP 67.76.161.133--and a duck test confirms that it's Bandit5257. Both blocked. I think we're done here. Blueboy96 18:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:I123Pie

Resolved

I just created a new article, Oxy-fuel. Immediately, this user nominated it for deletion, giving the obviously false reason 'advertising' and nothing else.

This article, in fact, is an attempt to start something about oxy-fuel combustion in general, similar to oxyhydrogen.

Then, when I notified him on his talk page, he deleted my message, labeling it 'vandalism'. Since he is clearly acting in bad faith, could someone remove the AfD, and warn him? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not so sure about the reason for this article, it certainly doesn't seem to be advertising. Tan | 39 18:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I placed the wrong tag, but its unverifiable and has no proof. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Like the edit summary that removed the hoax tag said - who hasn't heard of Oxyacetylene welding? --Random832 (contribs) 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what I123pie imagines this could be advertising. Maybe he thinks "Oxy-fuel" is a brand-name like OxiClean? I've notified him of this thread maybe we can straighten things out. --Random832 (contribs) 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Afd has been speedy closed(as keep) by User:Nick--Jac16888 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the deletion discussion and I've removed the nominator's access to twinkle for a week, for misuse. I note that the nominator used TW to remove a comment made by the creator of the article as vandalism, which is completely unacceptable. Nick (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I just marked this resolved - but as an aside, The Way's statement on i123Pie's talk page "This article is clearly not advertising and your nominating it for deletion is a personal attack." is tiresome. Half of AN/ANI seems to be dealing with people offended by "personal attacks". Tan | 39 18:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

i123pie has just requested unprotection of his monobook, protected by Nick after removing TW, saying "rv vandalism"--Jac16888 (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Archiving?

On User talk:Kei-clone, editor Kei-clone has stored a copy of MyAnimeList, an article fairly deleted through AfD on April 2nd for failing WP:WEB (by his own statement, it has now been deleted three times though only once through AfD). He first put this article on his talk page back in January, then removed it on March 17th when he recreated the page. The page was nominated for AfD on March 25th, at which point he archived the page to his user talk page again[90]. The page was deleted, along with a related page. I left Kei a note suggesting he now remove the article, per WP:USER or move to a subpage if he intends to work on the article to try to meet notability (which was never able to be established during the entire AfD). He said he can leave it on his main talk page if he wants to because it doesn't violate WP:USER. Additionally, User:CanadaAotS has also archived the same article, on his user page, and has had that archive up since January.

I feel both of these archives our violating WP:USER, as neither is showing any sign that they are doing anything but just simply trying to keep a copy of the article on Wikipedia. Both archivings make their user pages appear to be an article rather than a user page. I'm asking for an admin to address this as I'm uncertain on the rules concerning this since these are main user pages instead of user subpages, and Kei's reaction makes me suspect both editors will ignore anything said by a "regular" editor, particularly the one who AfDed the original articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is in usersapce, it will not come up on a wikipedia search. The question is whether it sets out to be misleading. On User talk:Kei-clone, given there is a welcome template above it and talk messages below it I'd be inclined to answer this as 'no', though one might reconsider if done up exactly to look like an article page. The second user also has a proviso above it, so in this case (at this stage) I wouldn't do anything about it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I am going to respectfully disagree with Casliber. I am concerned that what appears to be a full article is being "sheltered" on a talkpage, especially since the information was recently deleted at AfD.[91] If the information is not being worked on, then the article should be blanked off the talkpage, and a diff can be included which links to the information in history. User talkpages should be used for communication between editors about Wikipedia content, not as archive space. If the draft is being actively worked on, then it should be moved to a subpage, though if after a reasonable period of time it appears that the subpage is just being used as a free archive to dodge the AfD, then the subpage can be nominated for deletion via Prod or Miscellany for deletion. --Elonka 07:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#WEBHOST is relevant, here. The "article copies are okay in userspace if you're working on them" rationale seems to fall flat once the community's decided to content should be deleted. Maybe give it a little time, see if they're working on a deletion review request or something else productive and reasonable, but if it's just sitting there and they're not doing anything else, it seems we're being used as a webhost of sorts. Should the information really be needed, it'll still be available in history. GFDL compliance may be a concern, here, I haven't looked. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

once the community has decided a page should be deleted, it is especially appropriate for it to be in user space if for the purpose of improvement. Not that I think that this was being done here. And we may need a statement that such uses should be on a subpage. DGG (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and part of my concern. This editor hasn't touched it since archiving it, or much of anything else except for a few brief messages with another editor. He is showing no signs of intending to do anything with the article at all but hold it until he thinks no one will notice it being recreated. I agree, that it also needs better clarification as to where such an article should be and what qualifies as holding for redevelopment. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is in usersapce, it will not come up on a wikipedia search Er, no, it does: this is the result when I put the name in the "search" box. If you meant Google...well, User pages show up there, too, which I suspect is the entire point.

If the editor doesn't want to work on it, he can keep it on his own hard drive until he's ready. --Calton | Talk 14:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As Sintaku and I have informed the nominator previously more than once (although I removed that section), we are keeping it on my userpage for development purposes. If the problem is that the article isn't on a subpage then that can easily be fixed although I'd like someone to point out to me where on WP:USER it says I need to do that. Kei-clone (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That requires you to actually being developing the article. You've done nothing to it. User pages are not for indefinite holding of a deleted article until you someday decide to work on it. Also, Sintaku's were a general statement, not anything related to your continuing to hold it nor to CanadaAots having now had it archived for almost four months. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have other things more immediate in my life right now than a Wikipedia article, so there have not been any recent edits. The article was deleted hardly a week ago, and this is being a bit hasty. Also the entire process has left somewhat of a bad taste in my mouth so I feel I need some time away from it before I can properly improve upon it.

Still, if you need proof you can look back in the history of my userpage. I, and other editors, have used it before as development space for the article, and now that it has been deleted we shall continue to use it as workspace to improve it to wikipedia standards. It's a rather lengthy process at times, but this saber-rattling and effort watching over a userpage that hardly anyone looks at could really be focused on other things more important to wikipedia quality really. If I was a new editor I'd surely be disenchanted and gone by now. Kei-clone (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and perhaps you should mention your WP:COI in the matter, namely you being a forum moderator at MyAnimeList? And that you posted on the forums there asking people to come to Wikipedia to argue against the deletion of the MAL template? FYI, insulting other editors off site is still a violation of WP:CIVILITY and Wikipedia:No personal attacks as you did in saying "what an asshole, keep watching my page after she got what she wanted." while referring to me.[92] (and yeah, your forums are public, so going over there to post about what asses we are here really isn't wise). AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(as a side note, Kei has had the entire topic deleted, but not before putting out a call for assistance). AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was gonna stay silent your above comments because they are beyond the scope of this discussion but if you post misleading information like that I will have to point you out. I definitely did not put out a call for assistance for this discussion. Sandgolem's comments below were made entirely of his own volition. In fact, I did not even notice that my userpage was being watched until other members who helped contribute to the article (and watched it die before being relocated to my page for development) alerted me to this. Even after it happened, I had never asked anyone on the forums for assistance with our current topic at hand. The fact that I may be WP:COI or may have violated WP:CIVILITY also has nothing to do with my userpage (and the fact that you actually managed to dig that comment up only reasserts the reasons for my comment anyway). While they may have been relevant in the AfD, and if you feel I have offended you at some point we can resolve the dispute somewhere else (probably not here, dunno exactly where as I'm not familiar with every dispute resolution procedure on wiki), they don't need to be brought up here as I remain respectfully civil in any matters of discourse when it pertains to WP policy, regardless of my opinion of you as a character. Now if you would please remain within the scope of our discussion, which is the contents of my userpage, that would be much appreciated. Kei-clone (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thought I'm not really sure what else there is to discuss. I already made it clear here, if I was ambiguous on the userpage, that this article is going to be worked on, if not now then later. Shouldn't this be case closed? Kei-clone (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your off-site insult and your posts there speak to your intentions with the archived article. You posted a link to this discussion there, when MAL and its forums have nothing to do with the discussion either. That, to me, is a call for the members there to come assist by joining the discussion. In either case, it is clear that you do have a conflict of interest with the article, and in looking at your contribs, for nearly a year you have done almost nothing but work on the MyAnimeList and MAL Uploader articles. As someone tied to the article, with an interest in its contents and promotion of the site, you should not have created the article, nor should you recreate it. Someone who is not a moderator or otherwise directly connected to the site should be the one to do so, and only if real notability per WP:WEB can be established. As such, you do not need to have it archived at all. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was informing everyone that their comments were being watched, which was true. Afterwards I had second thoughts and decided not to add more fuel to the fire so I had the thread deleted. The link to the discussion was simply proof that the thread was being watched, and whether you believe so or not I am going to let all the other editors here know there was no call to arms or any of the sort. Your whole COI claim is weak because if you read WP:COI carefully you'd realize that it is simply a warning and a guideline, and the policy isn't so black and white that it immediately disqualifies me from working on an article that is worked on by multiple editors as long as I stay neutral and within the aims of Wikipedia. You, on the other hand, may not be the most neutral editor either. Although we can't exactly prove it, multiple editors from the AfD have called you on possible WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so let's just call this ad hominem attacking off now shall we? Kei-clone (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI may "just be a guideline" but that doesn't mean its one thats easily dismissed nor ignored. That almost you entire edit history relates to an article about a website you have a direct and personal connection speaks volumes. As for the IDONTLIKEIT, a - that's thrown around in nearly any AfD by supporters, b - I have no issues with MAL and despite whatever you may believe, I investigate to see if it had notability before AfDing it, and c - the whole "OMG you hate anime" really doesn't work against someone who owns thousands of dollars worth of anime and manga, has her own anime site (which, BTW, I would never presume to make an article for), and contributes heavily to the Anime and Manga project. Whether you personally like it or not, the plain and simple fact is that MAL is NOT a notable site per Wikipedia guidelines, period. Maybe in a few years as it grows, it will be, but right now it is now. Few websites are and even fewer anime websites are. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you're so into looking through edit histories you should also notice that before it was deleted, the MAL article was contributed by many editors other than myself, which is why this COI claim is so weak. I never claimed that you hated anime (it is quite clear from your userpage you don't) nor was I one of the editors who threw the IDONTLIKEIT at you, but I thought I'd point it out since you seem to be quite intent on perhaps even salting this article that you'd even continue attacking it on its development ground, and when your original points - that I was not developing the article on my page - were dealt with and explained, you go on to attack the editor's motives and whatnot. Nonetheless, I repeat that these points are beyond the scope of the discussion at hand, and request that we return to the actual topic - how my userpage is supposed to be used - rather than the contents of the article. To prevent going off on another mudslinging tangent I shall refrain from replying to any further comments that don't directly involve the discussion at hand and await for perhaps third opinion. Kei-clone (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As a note, CanadaAots has now moved his archive to a subpage (as well as archiving off site with a link to that page in his user page), but that doesn't negate the fact that its been "archived for development" for more than 3 months and he clearly states it is a "backup" not a copy to work on to try to improve/develop the article to meet WP:WEB for possible recreation. 3 months and no intention of editing, to me, seems like a pure violation. Kei's is more ambivalent though he has given no real indication of actually doing anything but holding it as a backup either. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(I wrote this up before reading Collectionian's latest paragraph. I've decided not to change my reply)

I've moved the text to a subpage on my userpage (User:CanadaAotS/MyAnimeList-WIP). As you can see even in the title, it says "WIP". At the moment, I do not have the time to edit this article right now due to exams and generally having many other things to do. This isn't just an archive. I will be working on it soon enough. Probably within a week at most. If you all feel the need to delete it anyways, I've already placed a link on my userpage to a shorttext url, that I'll keep synchronized with the subpage's code as I work on it (assuming it'll continue existing).

This'll be my only reply on the matter. It doesn't really matter to me, it's just a lot more convenient, since I can't see syntax mistakes as easily when editing from a notepad file.

Oh, nothing to do with the matter at hand, but for the record I'm a he. haha. CanadaAotS (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've updated my post appropriately. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry as a user of MAL, one of 40,000 users I might add. I feel that Wikipedia is out to get us. I thought we met the notability creditial already. It seems to me, that the only reason this is a consistant problem is because there are certin wiki admins with a personal problem against MAL and they are doing absolutely everything they can to remove the page. I wouldnt matter if we were listed in the New York Time I have a feeling the article would still get deleted.

Sandgolem (talk) 2:12, 8 april 2008

It has nothing to do with admins at all. The article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, plain and simple. A single brief, casual mention in one magazine does not make the site notable. If the New York Times did a piece on the site, the no, it probably wouldn't be deleted. Try to assume some good faith as several editors and admin who supported the deletion are also fans of the sites who use it. That alone doesn't make it notable and they were able to be neutral enough to acknowledge that, just like some of the people posting over on MAL in the now deleted thread also were able to acknowledge. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that only Ned Scott admitted to having an account on the site, and he never voted delete. None of the admins nor editors who voted delete admitted using the site or were "fans" of it. Not that the past two comments had anything to do with the discussion at hand anyway... Kei-clone (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, it is recommended that the use of a personal sandbox or drafts page is a good idea. And as long as there is something on the page identifying that it is a user page and/or is a draft, I don't have a problem with it. There are occasions were material has been deleted where I know there are sources yet don't have the time to visit a library to get the proper sourcing, and it may be months before I do so. I know of a recent case where an article only acquired reliable sourcing over 12 months after deletion. Unfortunately, the user who developed the article has been banned so it is invisible to non-admins. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, guess I'll throw up a userpage box Kei-clone (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Subsection:Is there some guidelines on personal sandbox use/userfying somewhere?

Is there some guidelines on personal sandbox use/userfying somewhere? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

500,000 ips blocked by Thatcher

Resolved

 – Move along, nothing to see here. Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Thatcher blocked more 500,000 IP addresses from editing wikipedia.S\he was told not to do so by Stevo Crossin twice....
Note: A WHOIS shows the IP is from a rather large range, an IP range block here may be impractical. Just my opinion here, its up to an admin here, but seems a large range to block. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: A range block here would not be permissible, CIDR suffix of 70.104.0.0/13, rangeblocking would whack out 524,288 addresses. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 17:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC).
...but did so anyways:
So far I've blocked 70.108.128.0/18 and 70.108.64.0/18 anon only. If he creates an account presumably he will be recognizable. There are a very few good editors on that range. Thatcher 18:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The block needs to be lifted and Thatcher needs to stop being overzealous. One cannot punish the masses for the actions of one. CassieSOUBRETTE (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that Stevo Crossin is an authority on range blocks. On the other hand, I've always thought Thatcher was careful and diligent in these things. So there must be a reason the IPs were blocked - can you fill in some details? Without them, it seems reasonable to trust Thatcher's experience here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, if only 70.108.128.0/18 and 70.108.64.0/18 were blocked, that's much less than 500,000 addresses. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above) Actually, according to the evidence provided above, Thatcher did 2 /18 blocks. A /18 block each covers 16,000 or so IPs, thus he blocked 32,000 adresses, large but still an order of magnitude less than the 500,000 implied above. /18 blocks are large, but still below the Wikipedia policy limit, which I believe are /15 or /16 blocks. This is well within reasonable limits, and I don't see that Thatcher has done anything wrong. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If he has only blocked two /18 ranges that is only 32,768 addresses. There is no "policy limit", but there is a software setting for maximum range size (talk to the devs). Thatcher's reason for blocking those two ranges was "disruptive IP-hopping anonymous editor evading blocks" and they will both expire 5-6 hours from now, if that helps. — CharlotteWebb 13:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that what he was told not to do (block a /13) is not the same as what he did do (block two /18s). You may be confused here. And nobody is being punished, anyone (well... except you) from those IPs is free to create an account and edit. --Random832 (contribs) 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• See this. SSDD, plus CassieSOUBRETTE (talk · contribs) is evading the block. Thatcher 15:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That account is blocked.[93] Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And I thank the topic creator on behalf of the admins for making blocking them so easy. 16:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher is a checkuser. Steve Crossin is not. Thatcher has confidential IP information relating to the use of this IP range. Steve Crossin does not. Thatcher has experience in evaluating whether a block is likely to be effective or detrimental. Steve Crossin does not. I'm inclined to side with Thatcher on this. Daniel (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For posterity: To be fair to Steve, the sock is misrepresenting what he said: [94]. --barneca (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've struck part of my above comment, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Regardless, I'm still inclined to agree with Thatcher :) Daniel (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I assumed you knew that, I just thought I'd clarify for future readers before the thread is archived. --barneca (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Increasingly uncivil conduct from User:Otolemur crassicaudatus

I've only been tangentially involved with this user prior to now, but I believe it needs an eye from an uninvolved party:

• Declaring as pointy a tag that had been applied two months previously on an article he'd never worked on. No reason to call it pointy as I advised him/her here and when the discussion continued on my Talk, I pointed out that nothing exempts stubs from being cited if the info is challenged.

• In response he continues to refer to the tag as pointy. It's not pointy and I don't intend to revert because I have no desire for an edit war on this article.

He has a history of issues related to reference tags, but his tone is increasing.

• Same article, different person, he demands a self revert because he's close to 3RR. Appears to be some history between the two.

He's exhibiting odd ownership of this article, considering he'd never worked on it before. Doesn't like the presence of any tags.

Unrelated incivility is present here with this discussion.

It's not a question of content but rather his/her tone which is a bit off-putting. I recall another discussion to this end here or at WP:AN, unfortunately I've not been able to find it in the archives.

Suggestions? Neutral eye? I'll be notifying him of this as soon as this posts. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no "increasing" uncivil conduct. Regarding the tagging by User:Londo06, he tagged a web article with prophecy, crystal and time-context [95]. But these templates are for articles which directly tell something about future event. Although the site is about a website which depicts future scenarios, it is not about any future event, it is web article. Hence the tags were inappropriate in the article and I told User:Londo06 to remove these. And regarding WP:OWN, I have never shown anything like that. The article is about a website which meets WP:WEB as it has three good references describing the subject in detail. So I removed the "refimprove" tag. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on this matter beyond the fact that the demand was replaced by a request after liaising with the user in question.Londo06 14:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ, immediately calling someone's two-month old edits, POINTY is quite uncivil. And none of the refs demonstate notability, which is why I originally added the refimprove tag. It exists, that doesn't pass WP:WEB. I tagged it for refimprove so someone would hopefully fix it.

The website is notable per WP:WEB. WP:WEB says website will be notable if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations". The article has three references and all cover the subject significantly. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone tell if the following sources establish notability:

• A complete article on the website
• Discusses the subject in quite detail
• An entire paragraph on the website

Why the article will fail notability based on the three sources. However someone who has more knowledge regarding WP:WEB should look into the matter. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

One of which you added this morning, hence the need for the refimprove tag. It needed improved references to establish notability, so can you explain why the tag was pointy? That's the issue, not the article itslef. I only noticed your tagging because it was still on my watchlist from when I tagged it before. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• The issue is with 'Increasingly uncivil conduct', one only needs to have a look through the history of talk and it is plain to see the number of instances when an editor has had occasion to question his actions. I have tried to politely suggest he moderates his behaviour but he just pretended not to understand and deleted my comments as indeed he does with all adverse comments.Paste (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

After declining to comment on their current incivility I can confirm that this user has a long history of problems with a vasst number of users, most of which the user chooses to remove from their talk page. I myself fell into this category, without wishing to beat the guy up too much, I think they should take the message on board and be civil.Londo06 18:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have had second thoughts about contributing to this thread, and now I can confirm the presence of numerous incidents with editors and some administrators that the user merely removes from his talk page without seeming to register with th editor, except in some incidents, in which the editor is uncivil in an aggressive way towards those who take issue with him

(See Smallthorne's edit history where the user tagged individually every sentence in one section, which is not the best way of proceeding; he was then reverted by one user, which was itself reverted to reinstate the tags by this user. Exchanges (including some with an administrator) took place on the user's talk page, which resulted in a removal, by the user, of the tags with a highly inaccurate and damaging description of the editors who took issue with his method of tagging. A report was made at WP:Wikiquette alerts, though it remains unresolved: This: diffs for unacceptable comments in edit summary; exchanges about his Smallthorne edits on his talk page; Wikiquette Alert (not yet resolved, though an apology for one aspect was made)

See Peterloo Massacre, where an entire section was tagged, inappropriately a number of us felt, as unsuitable for wikipedia here This was raised on the user's talk page, and the user made accusations of incivility and harassment on my talk page, here, because I said he was an over-zealous tagger (which, having read by then the numerous other incidents in his talk page history, I believe could be sustained. This was accompanied by a removal of my message on his talk page alleging that I was "trolling" here. Now, I do accept that my wording would have been better phrased as "over-zealous tagging" rather than "over-zealous tagger", but by that time, a look at the talk page had already yielded a large number of disputes between the editor and others, some of them administrators, over the use of overly speedy or unfounded tagging, or too speedy speedy-deletions or inappropriate AFDs, sometimes brought about by using a semi-automated system and not taking enough time to carefully consider the subject matter and status of articles.

Amongst the other incidents, a glance at the user's talk page will see that there are numerous other issues to do with editors, including administrators, disputing the mass-tagging of articles without careful enough reading of them to establish whether the tagging was at all appropriate. This led to him being temporarily prevented from using Twinkle, which had been used to carry out mass taggings, etc here, though the more recent history shows that this has had only a slight effect on behaviour. Some other problems from early January and February this year are: here January 13 2008; on 20 January, but issue took time to be resolved; here on January 26; Mislabeling a dispute about a vandal warning as being itself vandalism; mislabeling vandalism; Problem is edit summary and unexplained edits in the midst of an editing session by another February 15; Problems to do with mass MfDs; Contested, inadequately and unexplained and possibly inappropriate reversion February 19; and warning about overly speedy/unchecked deletion nominations February 21. These are what I discovered fairly quickly, and I could have spent more time getting many more such incidents.

Now, I do believe that the editor is doing very good work, but in between this are these incidents that I think are troubling and potentially causing problems. In this I wish to state that I am very much in favour of more care being taken to verify information in articles as much as possible (I feel I have to state this, as the Smallthorne incident, above, led to myself, an administrator, and another editor being accused in an edit summary of not somehow seeing the worth of verification.) However, it is the means by which some of the actions to improve verification are being carried out: mass tagging in which not enough care is taken to see whether the tags are appropriate; other incidents when speedy deletion requests are put in within 5 minutes of an article being created when the editor concerned is still obviously working on the article (a few incidents in his talk page history); or where unreferenced tags are placed immediately in a set of edits that cause edit-conflicts with the editors who omitted to put inuse templates, and repeated immediate tagging of some of these articles, sometimes wanting strange verification of matters that are almost common knowledge in other incidents (a few incidents.) The editor has complained about the behaviour of other editors, in various places, some on here, before. I think some of the complaints are justified, but there is a worrying amount of evidence on his talk page that shows that sometimes he has brought the behaviour upon himself by the problems I have summarized, above. I really do hope some attention can be given to helping this situation get resolved, as I really do think this editor makes good contributions, and they should be encouraged. However, the problems I and others believe are present also need to be addressed so that the editor's work can be further improved. Sorry for the length of this message.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Suicide note edited into suicide article

Resolved

A user has written a suicide note into the Suicide article here [96]. I don't know if this is the right venue, but I thought I should report it somewhere. Dawn bard (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have blocked user and emailed the Foundation for their information and action. That's all that needs to be done right now unless someone with Checkuser access can look up the IP and contact the authorities? I doubt there's much I can do from here. .--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't worry too much about it. "Goodbye cruel world"? Uh-huh. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but custom and practice, per Jimbo and previous threads here, is to take all these seriously. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a look in checkuser. It's someone playing silly buggers. I blocked all account names I could find and hard-blocked the IP (it was previously soft-blocked for vandalism). I also deleted the offending rev - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider reporting and action via WP:TOV. Bstone (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Grawp sock

User:Renvarian appears to be a sock of banned user Grawp. I've listed it as a suspected sock puppet, but I was wondering, is it obvious enough to be listed as confirmed? Angel Cupid (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would certainly think so. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh GAWD yes its obvious enough to list. See [97] where he fully admits to it... No doubt this is Grawp. Looking at his contribs, one can only think, can't this guy make it harder for us to figger out its him? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When the duck is quacking too loudly and too similarly, its convincing enough to be considered confirmed.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are some IPs who are, if not Grawp, his allies based on behavior; I have blocked the 4 IPs adding *that* pic to User:Gavin.collins for one month apiece as proxies and/or Grawp himself and deleted the revisions. Having said that, Grawp and Gavin have crossed sword in the past; see this. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh goody. Would it be too much to ask that someone staple Grawp's face shut? HalfShadow (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

now now.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And while we're at it, I request that administrators not protect my user talk page. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 23:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry Jéské - I can understand your feelings here. That's why I asked rather than taking action, when you can do so yourself if you wish to. Pedro :  Chat  23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(RI) Trust me, I am. And now that the crapflood is over (thanks, Anonymous, for your link!), I have posted a thread at WP:VPT; I've noticed something about the crapflood links. IPs harassing myself and HalfShadow blocked anywhere from 2 weeks - 3 months AO ACB. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 00:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone check these IP addresses for me: 86.134.219.187 (talk · contribs) and 71.116.20.107 (talk · contribs). They have just been involved in some main-page FA vandalism, and certainly had a distinctly "Grawpy" odor, if you catch my drift. I blocked them as obvious Grawp socks/copycats. Can someone endorse? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, shiznit... Looking at the history of that article, it is clear that Grawp (or whoever) is using a batch of massivly drifting IPs... Perhaps these are TOR nodes or some such proxies? Could someone with more experience investigate these? I have been tagging them with {{IPsock|Grawp}}, but there's almost too many to keep up with. The article has been s-protected, but can someone look into further action against these IPs??? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on this edit, someone posted to a forum asking people to help. I'm sure they'll look at the protection as a victory. It's very unlikely that "grawp" was actually involved. --Onorem♠Dil 01:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat related...I think protection is wrong, but at least there's a chance that it will draw out some sleepers. --Onorem♠Dil 01:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible, though with Grawp's recent return to full PITA status recently, it is highly suspicious that a bunch of ranmdom, uninvolved editors take up his distinctive editing style instantly and without provocation by him... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

True enough. My statement probably could've been more clear. I don't doubt that Grawp, or someone that saw that Grawp has recently been active, posted to a forum somewhere. I just doubt that most of the IPs involved are directly related to the user. --Onorem♠Dil 01:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Stuff like this has actually been happening quite a bit recently. Just block the IPs AO ACB for a few weeks, delete the revisions they are reverting back to, and be done with it; it's high time Anonymous got back to harassing the CofS rather than Wikipedians. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 01:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I can assume that I must have missed something fairly nasty if it was a history deletion instead of just a revert. HalfShadow (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Attacks of this nature always rely on past revisions to work; thus the only way to head off the attack is to delete the source revision and all revisions that mimic it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 02:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

user:Lukeatomic

Resolved

 – user blocked for 3RR by Toddst1

This new user, User:Lukeatomic seems to be stubbornly going against policy adding trivial information to articles about episodes related to Arrested Development (TV series). He adds info explaining every joke in every episode and adds things like continuity errors and original research WP:EPISODE. See list of all episodes, especially season 1 and the beginning of season 2. I don't believe I have to provide diffs because the users only edits were to revert me without valid explanation (so just see contribs), I have attempted to discuss and pointed him to policies and guidelines also warning about the three revert rule, but user has completely ignored me. Can somebody please help, thanks. The Dominator (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that user has now violated the 3RR on several articles, here is an example: first revert second revert, third revert and fourth revert. The Dominator (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kittitian repeat copyright violations after warnings

User:Kittitian contribs posts information copy/pasted from nationsencyclopedia in many articles. http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com has a copyright notice on the bottom of their webpage. Kittitian has been warned about copyright issues in the past, and I left 4 messages on their talk page yesterday, explaining why this is important and asking them to either remove or rewrite the material, or show that permission has been obtained. I marked the all the articles Kittitian has added seemingly copywriten material during April, but I'm sure there's more from before, unsourced and now changed by later editors.

Today they ignored the messages and added similar material to two different articles.

In a seperate issue, they are also not sourcing the material that is not completely copy/pasted, even though I asked them to do that as well (did so to only one page--Economy of Cuba‎--but that just showed me that the material was c/p'ed). NJGW (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave a very short block; it should be reinstated if they start doing it again when it expires. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Their user page also needs purging as they are self identifying as a minor and giving location information. I've reverted some more copy-pasting and left the warning template. An admin has also given them a short block to help emphasis the message.AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kinggan

User:Kinggan has slapped suspected sock-puppet templates on three user pages including mine. This happened after someone had tagged him as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Ksense. This user is repeatedly reverting Hogenakkal Water Dispute article to a POV version. Can someone please look into this issue and revert his userpage edits? I am not sure it will be right for me to do so. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted it.This is highly ethical on your part not to do so.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sockie gone. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Annett‎

User:Grannysaga added information that I considered as biased and conflict of interest to the biography page of Kevin Annett. I warned her, removed it and she reverted my edit accusing me 'censoring information'. I explained it on her talk page and she subsequently remove the 2008 protests section and cite it is biased (however, he/she ceased to add back information that are in conflict of interest).

I've wrote a really long explanation on his/her talk page and on Kevin Annett talk page. I want administraors to intervene as I don't want to violate the 3RR rule.--Cahk (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The user in question was clearly trying to edit war. I have issued a brief block to stop it. I would ALSO recommend that you follow your instincts to avoid the article yourself for a while. I commend you on your restraint in coming here before being engaged in the edit war yourself. Please encourage Grannysaga to use the article talk page and I also encourage you to do the same. Good luck and happy editing!--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Cross

Featured Article Victoria Cross is under coordinated attack by IP editors.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is significantly worse than usual vandalism on the TFA. I've upped the protection to edit=autoconfirmed; move=sysop. I didn't change the expiry time to avoid losing the move protection while its still on the main page. Anyone can feel free to reduce it at their discretion. Mr.Z-man 03:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know which group of speds it is today? HalfShadow (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Same as started to attack me once Z-Man protected it and as attacked you and me earlier. Where's V when you need him? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 03:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is all part of www.4chan.org, where trolls request for wikipedia to be vandalized. The best thing to do is WP:RBI and WP:DENY, this has been going on for a while now. Tiptoety ^talk 04:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, Tiptoety. You'll also have to delete the source revision for the whole vandalism in order to stop it (even if momentarily); these attacks give an edit link to a specific revision. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 04:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well then revert, block, delete revisions, and ignore. :) Tiptoety ^talk 04:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with IP address user- has dynamic IP so editing from constantly changing address

Special:Contributions/86.29.134.157 Special:Contributions/86.29.141.12 Special:Contributions/86.29.133.181 Special:Contributions/82.152.16.153

This user has ONLY made vandalism-related edits, so simply checking the logs for the IP addresses he/she uses will be all that's necessary.

This person has targeted myself, User: Bsrboy and User: Realist2. We all recently contributed to the Ivybridge Community College article and I suspect it is a student from that (my) school. The IP addresses would certainly place it within the region. Bsrboy is also a student at my school but not one in affiliation with me before our recent edits to the same Wikipedia page (we didn't even know each other existed) so my guess is that this is a non-personal assault by a student on anyone editing the page. He has posted photos of naked men on userpages, sworn ("Fuckers") used racial slurs and generally just...needs getting rid of. Realist2 was going to report this himself, but I'm sure if I do then there is no need for further comment from him unless you ask it of him. I don't know quite what is going on but I think it is clear that this is not something I can deal with. Please help if possible, thanks. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Special:Contributions/86.133.6.176

Yet another alias of this same user. Can a dynamic IP be stopped?(The Elfoid (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

• All blocked for a week for harassment. They don't seem to realise that the more they do this, the more evidence there is a for a rangeblock which will cut them dead, but at present, it's not there. But it's close. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be a perminant ban for using racist language (lol if only i was the King of wiki). Realist2 (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My talk page got it again. I'm starting to wonder why anyone would be so dedicated to doing this....I have no enemies. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

86.29.135.72 - forgot to post the latest IP (The Elfoid (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

I just got caught in the middle of this, but it's a pretty serious problem. User:86.29.141.188 was just blocked, but as it seems only for a day. I'm going to request protection of Realist2's talk page for now. —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say after this many offences, a permanent block's required. If he had made actual edits to Wikipedia, perhaps he could remain...but this is a user who has so far used wikipedia ONLY to cause trouble. My page got vandalised a total of 5 times, Bsrboy's page once, Realist2 6 times. On top of a couple of other cases on other pages, if I remember rightly. (The Elfoid (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

A permanent block isn't possible, for two reasons, due to the dynamic IP. One is that because of the dynamic IP, the user can simply reset and they will have a new IP, and thus be able to evade the block. The second is that a permanent block would block out any other users that might have that IP later on. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I forget about the banning-other-users thing, since I use my account at school and my school's IP is blocked. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

Stalking

I am tired of user:SWik78 stalking. He has been warned about that on 2 April [98] but he has not stoped. On 16 March I have recieved WP:ARBMAC decision with which my reverts has been limited to 1 time in 48 hours.

• On 18 March user:SWik78 has given me warning about my reverting [99] .It is important to notice that he has never earlier edited that article.
• On 31 March I have made editorial change in article SAO Western Slavonia. My changes has been deleted less of 24 hours latter by user:SWik78 to clearly POV version of article [100] . It is important to notice that this user has never earlier edited this article.
• On 1 April he has warned me about my changes in article Croatia Records [101] after which he has recieved my stalking warning [102] because he has never earlier edited this article
• On 6 April I have deleted parts of article Creation of Yugoslavia [103]. My deleting has started small editorial war between user:PaxEquilibrium (which has sneaked this part of article in February) and user:Hobartimus . Few hours latter user:SWik78 has reverted user:Hobartimus [104]. It is important to notice that user:SWik78 has never earlier edited this article !!

In my thinking because of this stalking evidence user:SWik78 need to recieve small award--Rjecina (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Similar to my situation user:SWik78 is stalking user:GriffinSB ([105] [106] [107] [108] he has never earlier edited this articles) which is clear evidence of his stalking policy--Rjecina (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the evidence above shows him checking your contributions rather than stalking. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If the user is undoing edits made by the above editor at multiple locations where they do not regularly/ordinarily edit in order to be disruptive, then it is clearly a form of harassment. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am wary of any one editor who makes a conscious attempt to review the edits of another contributor who has a revert restriction, and then edit in a manner to which any response will be a violation of that restriction. That the original editor has a editing restriction may be indicative of a past poor record, but such a restriction was not intended as a means by which another editor may attempt to provoke a reaction. Per Wisdom89 I feel that there is likely an intent to harass. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

About my ban or "poor record" I will show administrator words [109] .There is no need to say that I am angry about that. --Rjecina (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If he is NPOV user (or similar to that) I will not have problem with his stalking because I am stalked by more of 5 users from Balkan region but his Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (both article edits has without any question been POV) and warnings are !

I think that his tendentious edit is clear. In article SAO Western Slavonia he has deleted my edits which speaks about Croatian and Serbian warcrimes so that only Serbian warcrimes are deleted [110].

In article Creation of Yugoslavia he has added section Vojvodina. Problem is that users outside ex Yugoslavia and Austro-Hungary do not know that this is nothing else but Serbian name of Banat, Bačka and Baranja so that now article is having 2 section which speak about 1 province my statement is possible to confirm in article Banat, Bačka and Baranja--Rjecina (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Wisdom89 and LessHeard vanU that the evidence shows propable harassment here done by user:SWik78. He should be notified of this thread and given a chance to explain his actions. Hobartimus (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

I'm not quite sure where to begin so let me just say that I in no way, shape or form intend to harass or cause distress to Rjecina (talk · contribs) or anyone else who is working on this project out of good faith. I believe the evidence here has been misrepresented in order to label me as the bad guy even though I don't believe there is a bad guy in any of this. I believe Rjecina takes criticism of his edits a little too personally and sees these criticisms as personal attacks when in fact they're nothing of the sort. I would like to make a few points here so as to explain myself. I will do my best to only defend myself and refrain from accusing others of misdoings so please let me know if I stray from that path.

1. The first thing I would like to do is provide links to my contributions and to a Wannabe Kate summary of my edits. I assure you that these are not listed to brag of any imagined accomplishments in editing (honestly, I haven't accomplished all that much) but they are listed to display the diversity of my edits. I have never concentrated on one single topic, article or editor, rather I spread my contributions to as many different aspects of Wikipedia that my (to this point fairly limited) knowledge allows me to. Most of my efforts have been concentrated on fighting vandalism but I regulary patrol new pages, request speedy deletion of articles, participate in WP:AFD and, not as often as I should, participate in WP:RFA discussions. My user page also lists some of the articles I've created. Again, I'm not looking for any kind of recognition for my work but I only intend to prove the intent of my diversity on Wikipedia. The articles I've created range in variety from a Croatian actress (Zrinka Cvitešić‎), to a Finnish actor (Markku Peltola), to a pshychological cognitive bias (Subjective validation), to a Canadian film producer (Norman Cohn (film producer)), to a mountain in Croatia (Petrova Gora), to a Dutch musician (Marijne van der Vlugt), to a Finnish film (Drifting Clouds (film)), to an American musician (Carl Broemel), to a low budget American film (The Celestine Prophecy (film)‎). Once I am done responding to these accusations, I will cease my edits for a short period of time so that the above provided 2 links can be used by the community to reviewe and scrutinize my edits for any alleged Wikipedia:Tendentious editing or bias.
2. Although it may seem logically or chronologically out of order, the next item I'd like to discuss is my involvement in the Croatia Records article. As Rjecina noted above, I have never edited this particular article. It is a misrepresentation to stop there and say nothing of the fact that as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Former Yugoslavia, I have edited and watchlisted many ex-Yugo music related articles (Toše Proeski‎, Đorđe Balašević‎, Novi fosili‎, Srebrna Krila‎, Doris Dragović‎, Bajaga‎, Prljavo kazalište‎, Thompson (band)‎, Marko Perković‎, Vesna Zmijanac‎, Miroslav Ilić‎, Tanja Savić‎, Bježi kišo s prozora‎, Tamo gdje ljubav počinje‎, Oliver Dragojević‎, Zdenko Runjić‎, Tereza Kesovija‎, Diskoton‎, Jugoton‎, PGP-RTB‎ and others). Recently, there was a content dispute started between Rjecina and 64.46.2.216 (talk · contribs) on the Croatia Records article. During their dispute, Rjecina did in fact delete a disputed section in this edit. I didn't revert the edit because I lacked the knowledge of the subject but I did post this warning on his page because in his edit summary he accused the IP editor of vandalism when it clearly was nothing more than a content dispute. In his accusation of me stalking him, he failed to advise this notice board of the fact that I left a similar warning for the above named IP editor for the same exact thing because he made this revert and in his edit summary called Rjecina a vandal (rvv = reverting vandalism according to Wikipedia:Edit_summary_legend#Revert to a previous edit). Furthermore, I believe it speaks of my neutrality to say that the IP editor left this message on my talk page after the warning I left for him and spoke some more of his reasoning to label Rjecina a vandal. I, then, posted a response to him in which I strongly defended the same editor I'm being accused of stalking (my exact words were Rjecina's edits are not made in bad faith, therefore, you are incorrect in calling him a vandal). Therefore, the situation is being misrepresented because warnings were left for both sides involved in the dispute and both sides were given a link to WP:VAND#NOT to familiarize themselves with what vandalism is not.
3. This edit I made on SAO Western Slavonia that Rjecina refers to twice in the above summary of events and which he calls clearly POV was a revert of this edit of his so I only reverted to a version previous to his which I don't believe to be POV. I will do my best not to bring content disputes to this noticeboard but I just want to say that I reverted his edit because I generally find it unneccessary to keep listing Serb war crimes and Croatian war crimes out of context and simply for the reason of it being there. I felt, in utmost good faith, that the sentence he inserted was out of context in this article and did nothing to further explain Serbian population's reasons to separate. I believed it to be a sort of WP:COATRACKing.
4. Another edit that he refers to twice is my reverting of this deletion of his. The section that he deleted was quite large, well written and well sourced. At the time of his deletion, there was no discussion on the article's talk page about this section and the edit summary he left included the question Can somebody please explain what is having "Serbian" Vojvodina with Creation of Yugoslavia?. I believe that this question he asks might be a valid question but, instead of being asked on the talk page to reach a consensus, the question was asked after the paragraph was deleted and, therefore, it served no purpose. When I placed the section back, I also attempted to neutralize it by removing the word Serbian from the heading hoping to ease the tensions somewhat. Please note that I did not add the section to duplicate another existing section as is claimed above. The section has been there for some time and I had nothing to do with its creation, I only have an issue with large chunks of well written and well sourced text being deleted without consensus or even a proper explanation. I would revert the same edit from any other editor, including an administrator, if I felt that the removal was unjustified. Also, note that PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs) has also replaced that section in the article believing it to be valid. Both PaxEquilibrium and myslef only replaced the deleted text so I would challenge the statement made in Rjecina's above summary that my edits have without any question been POV.

I'd only like to say 2 things in conclusion:

1. Contrary to what I'm being accused of in the POV department, I also revert POV edits from Serbian editors as can be seen here, and here. I also suggested here that an article defended by Serb editors and not liked by the Croatian editors (Petar Brzica) be nominated for deletion where I would vote to have it deleted. My motivations are not political, they are Wikipedical.
2. I earlier stated that I would refrain from accusing others of misdoings. If my following statements make me break my own promise, I do apologize but I deem it necessary information. Immediately after the warning I left for Rjecina in which I informed him of incorrectly labelling others as vandals, he posted these messages ([111], [112], [113]) on other editors' pages in which he accused me of WP:STALKING. First of all, the definition of stalking states that it is editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress. As per the evidence I provided earlier about my contributions and edit summary, I edit a very small portion of the articles that Rjecina edits and they in turn constitute a small portion of thousands of other articles I have edited. I promise all of you that my intent is not to cause annoyance or distress even though this seems to be that case due to Rjecina taking this to heart. I explained that to him when he first accused me of stalking and tried to explain that I'm commenting on his edits, not him as an editor. However, I question the sincerity of the intent of his accusations due to something he mentioned several times. I believe that he wants to see me punished more so than he wants me to leave him alone. In this and this edit he speaks of an administrator tool given to me by administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) and he is referring to the WP:Rollback feature. I must say that explicitly asking Fut. Perf. to remove this from my control (Maybe it will be OK for you to delete his administrator tool) seems punitive rather than preventative because I have never, ever misused this tool against Rjecina nor enyone else and I have fully abided by the rules governing the use of this feature. Indeed, if I was not denied permission to keep using rollback in my daily vandal fighting, it would in no way affect Rjecina negatively (or positively) in any way what so ever. I believe I use the tool well for what it was intended and I appreciate being given the opportunity to prove myself responsible with it.

So I will end it here. I thank you for your time and ask that you please accept my sincere apologies if I overstepped my boundries by by taking up too much of your time to read such a long diatribe but I felt the details necessary. As stated before, I will cease my editing for the rest of this day so that my edits can be reviewed for any alleged pattern or bias. I do welcome further questions from any administrators either here or on my talk page.

Thank you again!
Sincerely, SWik78 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In my thinking you have writen long text so that everybody forget part about stalking because you have not explained your changes in articles after I have edited !!!!

If your edits has been neutral and not tendentious can you please explain your defending of users which has sneaked article changes without discussions and not protecting original article. When I speak about that I speak about changes made by PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs) in article Creation of Yugoslavia. Because it is possible to see that article is controversial all changes has been discussed before writing article. Only change which has not been discussed is PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs) POV change.

I still wait your answer about stalking or if you do not understand word how is possible that you have started to edit or write warnings about my edits if I have not been stalked ?--Rjecina (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I will not be explaining anything to do with content here because this is not the place for it. If you have an issue with an edit of mine, bring up that specific edit in the talk page of the related article or on my talk page. Every message I left for you and every comment I made about your edits was very specific - I commented on your edits, I didn't comment on you. You seem to be blanket accusing me of a multitude of things from stalking to POV editing to writing long passages in order to confuse people. I welcome criticism but please criticize what I do when I do it, don't criticize me as a person or as an editor once you think you've had enough. I do understand the meaning of the word stalking as well as I understand the Wikipedia definition of WP:STALKING and I am not guilty of either just as you are not guilty of stalking 64.46.2.216 (talk · contribs) by reverting his edits you don't agreee with ([114], [115], [116]) and commenting about him on other editors' talk pages ([117]), as well as his own ([118]), and responding to him in discussions and calling him a vandal when you disagree with his edits ([119], [120]). That does not make you a stalker by any means so how does it make me one? I have an issue with editors being labeled vandals during a content dispute and I will always stand up for those people, whoever the accuser. But I am not stalking you nor anyone else. Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add something if I may. At the very beginning of your summary of events you stated that you warned me about stalking on April 2 (which is true) and that I haven't stopped. From April 2 up until the time you initiated this thread, this is the only edit I made on any article that you recently edited. One edit in 4 days is enough for you to accuse me of stalking and not stopping? Mind you, I agree that there doesn't have to be a specified number of edits to constitute harassment but how do you deduce my negative intent towards you from one edit (that was not directed towards you anyways, it was a revert to a previous version of the article and my edit summary only spoke of content, not any editors) among the 200+ edits that I made in between your message on my talk page and my revert on the Creation of Yugoslavia article? SWik78 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your guilt is more clear every time when you try to defend yourself ! From history of Croatia Records it is clear that I have protected NPOV version of article from November 2007 ( [121] ) and when I have not been in position to protect article anymore administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise (which has given me revert ban) has started to protect my version of article against POV SPA account. It is interesting to notice that you have warned me about protection of this article :)

On other side you have never earlier edited article in which you have reverted me from NPOV to POV versions of articles and because of that this has been stalking ! In 4 situation about which we speak 3 times you have reverted (or given me warning) page in support of Serbian POV. One of this times has even been in support of forever banned person. Last warning it has been about my protection of NPOV version which speaks about Croatian company (administrator has supported my action). This is saying everything about your edits :)))--Rjecina (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we have both said everything we can without repeating ourselves or getting into a content discussion. Let's allow others to express their opinions, questions or concerns. I welcome further questions from administrators here or on my talk page.
Thank you! SWik78 (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRAMA = WP:ANI ?

I'm just a lurker, but is WP:DRAMA really supposed to link to this noticeboard? That seems odd... Dgcopter (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny. My last edit. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[122] and [123] --barneca (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's intended to be one of those little harmless, but still amusing, things that keeps us admins somewhat sane. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it is supposed to link here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the humorous redirects. I use WP:SMITE all the time. Neıl ☎ 18:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PFFFTT! I didn't know SMITE existed. I'm using that too. In the same vein, I believe WP:SMOTE should go here. Any takers? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would love for WP:PWNRSHP and/or WP:PWNAGE to go to WP:OWN. Also, WP:PWNED could possibly go to something block- or ban-related. Mike R (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It used to... — CharlotteWebb 22:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Just an FYI, WP:SMOTE was a redlink when I posted above. Now it goes where I thought, humorously, where it should go. Ack. What have I gotten myself into??? :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

THEY killed WP:RICK's redirection to WP:ROLL as well. John Reaves 02:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually WP:RICK should redirect to Template:The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar, or to User:RickK, or to some other kind of memoriam or maybe a "Don't be a Rick" essay.... — CharlotteWebb 03:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In an ideal MediaWiki interace, WP:RICK would redirect to an external link. Cookie to whoever guesses which one... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure it should redirect to to Rick's Cafe right DiMo? :P Dureo (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it count as being Rickrolled if I only hovered over the link? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ignore all dramas. The Cabal (TINC) has spoken. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

An aggressive sock puppet?

Could anyone check please if an IP 206.186.8.130 (please see his talk page [124]) is a sock puppet of User:RJ_CG? They both conducted RR warring at the same page Chekism: [125]. Note that User:RJ_CG inserts poorly sourced defamatory statements in BLP of Yelena Tregubova right now [126].Biophys (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Most probably User:RJ_CG forgot to log in or was logged out by the WMF software and did single edits to Chekism‎ and Talk:Chekism articles (within 3 minutes). Do not see any reasons to violate WP:AGF here. I fail to see a connection here with User:RJ_CG's edits inserting Kommersant's (former employer) opinion about the subject of the article I also do not see how the newspaper's opinion may be better referenced then by providing the reference to the online version of the publication on the newspaper's own website. I would suggest to work towards consensus rather than shop for a block of your content opponent Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So, do you confirm that IP 206.186.8.130 was him? If it was not him, all this conversation does not make any sense.Biophys (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • My guess is based on the account's contributions and probably as good as yours. It looks quite believable that some edits of the account belongs ro RJ_CG while the other belongs to a different user. Quit possible a shared IP address Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
      • So, you think he does not deserve even warning for edit warring on the same article using multiple accounts, even though he was blocked multiple times on the both accounts and was uncivil and disruptive according to ArbCom decision? Then I am sorry for interruption here.Biophys (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot asleep?

Resolved

 – It was a problem with the section headers. --Elonka 06:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, User:MiszaBot II used to be archiving at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, but it doesn't seem to have done anything since March 24, and there are many threads on the page older than the 14 day cutoff, such that it's up to 280K. The bot page says to report errors here at ANI. So, anyone have suggestions how we can "goose" the bot to start up again? --Elonka 08:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is significant, but the last edit it made to that page was to create a new archive - maybe that broke it somehow? Hut 8.5 09:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It archived on the 5th. It only archives when its 30 days old, not 14. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same page? The one I'm looking at hasn't been archived since March 24, and it's set to a 14-day cutoff.[127] The bot seems to have created a new archive normally (#42), and copied a thread to it,[128] but hasn't worked since then. --Elonka 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no, I looked at the talk page. :P I can't see anything weird in the code and it doesn't look to be tampered with. I did a partial manual archive to see if it helps prod it. Maybe something in a post was hampering it since MiszaBot has continued archiving other Wikipedia space pages on schedule. Actually, I just did a comp of the page at the last archive and the current and the header levels had also been changed. I think that may have been what broke it since, essentially, it was probably considering the whole page one big active thread. So I've fixed them back to what they were before. Let's see if that fixes it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot stopped archiving because it's only capable of recognizing separate threads as level-2 headers. Each Wikiquettes alert used to be a separate level-2 header, but they all seem to now be level-3 headers under "Active alerts". So, unless the entire "Active alerts" section can be archived, nothing will be. The format of the page will need to be changed back to using separate level-2 headers for each alert, if automatic archiving is to function. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:24, 8 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Looks like fixing the section headers did the trick. Thanks for the help!  :) --Elonka 06:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tw3435

Resolved

 – page(s) deleted, user warned

_GB^T/C 11:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to bring this up - User:Tw3435 is offering other people's passwords on their userpage, at least, I think that's what's going on. NOt sure what to do; I'll fall foul of 3RR if I keep reverting. Pseudomonas_(talk) 11:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

99% of their contributions are to their userpage. I think I'll delete the userpage under G11 (a bit tenuous, perhaps, but Wikipedia is not a webhost / myspace alternative, and warn the user accordingly. _GB^T/C 11:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Gene Hoglan's reported death

Resolved

 – multiple eyes on the article now. --barneca (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To the admins:

Someone keeps adding a death date of April 8th, 2008 for the drummer Gene Hoglan here on his Wiki page.

I have had contact with Gene and he is very much alive and well. In Oregon as of the night of April 8th, but alive and well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holkimcardie1 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the source they cited wasn't to a metal music website but a porn site and I can't find any sources on the internet at all suggesting he died so I'm guessing it was just sneaky vandalism. AngelOfSadness talk 15:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the past tense "was" references as if he was actually deceased to present tense as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, AngelOfSadness. Yeah, I went and contacted Gene myself with I saw that. I had actually been directed from someone on the Adult Swim boards. I hadn't been able to find the site they cited in the report of Gene's death. But I got a reply from Gene last night. And from the response I know it was Gene.  ;-D Will try to change if the twit comes back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holkimcardie1 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess you can't get a better cite a better source than the man himself. I'll keep an eye on the article for the next few days in case someone re-adds it in good faith or whoever origianlly wrote it comes back. AngelOfSadness talk 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given the original instigator of the hoax a final warning. I think/hope this is resolved. --barneca (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, all of you! I know your job is hard. What with twits thinking they are funny if they post wrong info. (Not the language I want to use, but Is good.  ;-) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holkimcardie1 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/216.229.227.142

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Nick for a merciful 48 hours considering it's a University

Running rampantly leaving random messages on user talk pages. Clearly falls victim to WP:DIS. Messages left by other users on 216's talk has no effect.

If this is for a different venue, please point me to it. 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 15:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Those really are "special contributions". Support block (and block length). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is related to this message left on my page a few days back, given that they started with me first. Good block as far as I am concerned, clearly disruptive. Woody (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had to block several IPs belonging to the very same university recently (most recently 216.229.227.144 (talk · contribs)). I doubt the entire Southern Adventist University campus is crazy, so it's likely the same student using multiple computers to troll Wikipedia. - auburnpilot talk 17:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User redirecting to IP page weirdness

This [129] seems very strange. A registered user is redirecting his pages to his IP address page. Not sure if it's allowed, or makes sense, or anything, really. I just wanted to get an opinion on it. This guy seems determined to make a point. Redrocket (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Could I have some help with this please, I am currently discussing this with the user in question on my talk page, and frankly not sure where to go from here. I do not think they are really violating any policies, but do not think it is the best idea. Tiptoety ^talk 04:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing: that IP has been trolling for about a year now, with multiple (inexplicably short) blocks. I cannot believe it is not the same person. The acccount is now just more of the same: trolling. My normally well-controlled rougeness may be showing, but the question is: why in the world should you allow them to yank your chain? Rather than discuss what policy they're violating, I'd be contemplating an indef block for the account and a months-long block for the apparently static IP. --barneca (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I was assuming too much good faith. I was just looking over their block log...hmm.... Though if you run a WHOIS on the IP it appears to be shared. Tiptoety ^talk 04:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the content of their edits over the last year; either it isn't shared, or that particular ISP has nothing but trolls subscribing to it. Lots of different vandals on a shared IP, maybe. Lots of different trolls? No. If it was really shared, I don't think it would keep getting re-assigned to the same troll, would it? And, in any case, the account isn't shared... --barneca (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The coincidence is strange, but just the other day we were talking about IPs having the right to delete material on their own pages. If no one "owns" an IP talk page, how does he even have the right to set up shop on that page? He's now copying material from my talk page for his own, for some reason. Trolling, WP:POINT to the extreme. Redrocket (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that his claimed IP address is not always static, and thus the redirect is inappropriate. See: [130] where he clearly "claims" a different IP than the one he redirected his talk page to. Thus, redirecting his talk page to the IP talk page is clearly inappropriate, since there is no proof that a) he only uses that IP or that b) he is the only person using that IP. I propose we unredirect his pages, and warn him not to do it again. If he insists on redirecting his talk page to that specific IP (the connection to his main account which is entirely unprovable) then he should be blocked for simple disruption and attempting to mislead other Wikipedia users by that disruption. Does that sound reasonable? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, seems reasonable. Not to stuff beans up my nose, but he is going to make a fuss about it. Tiptoety ^talk 05:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, that's fascinating. I just got dragged into something with this IP editor last night that to me looks, sounds, and feels identical to the page above. I wonder if there is a relationship of some sort here? Loren.wilton (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've used up my allotment of rouge for the evening, but that does indeed look similar; bears watching. Geographically dissimilar, however. Figuring out whether one or both are open proxies is beyond me. --barneca (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC) see below

Sorry, didn't see Jayron32's comment before I blocked both the IP (3 months) and the account (indef). I have no problems if someone thinks I went overboard and wants to adjust, but this is silly; "trolling" is overused on this board, but this is a textbook case. --barneca (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

By my count, he's had 43 edits in his two identities today, and not a single one of them was productive. Most of them were trolling and disruption, and he's trying to continue the argument at his talk page while blocked. Redrocket (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have undone the redirect. Personally, I think we give them one more chance and unblock them to see where the go from here. However, that may be just part of my desire to extend this guy a length of rope suitible for self-hanging... I would say unblock him and see what happens, but I am not strongly held to that desire... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I won't fight someone else unblocking, but I won't do it myself. IMHO, we don't need to give him more rope; he's already hanged. Before anyone unblocks, I suggest looking at the edits from the IP from last year, and tell me if you think it isn't the same person. --barneca (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh... good enough. I have always felt that later blocking is always better than earlier blocking, since the more evidence, the more likely it will "stick"... However, this guy has made NO attempt to improve any aspect of Wikipedia, and I'm not sure we miss much not having him around... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP Loren posted has been pseudo-spamming talk pages tonight. Enigma ^message Review 07:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

About the IP Loren mentioned- I haven't looked at what he's been doing on the talk pages but please see my comments at User_talk:74.234.39.218#This_IP_bloke_is_slightly_right-_don.27t_block_him_yet . special, random, Merkinsmum 11:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed the other IP's (74.234.39.218's) contribs in the light of day, I have to agree with Merkinsmum. First, although the two IP's share a tendency to include others' text when copy/pasting to other locations, that's about the only thing they have in common. 125.60 copy/pastes in an intentionally disorganized way; If you go thru diff by diff, there's a method to 75.234...'s madness. Second, 125.60... is a pure troll. 74.234... appears to be trying to make constructive edits; the problem is, they were so abrupt that others tended to not look past the abruptness to see their underlying correctness. Not the same person, and I agree with Merkinsmum: don't block. --barneca (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually on a fairly thorough review of the little available information on the SPaM page, I've come to the conclusion that the page itself very probably was/is in good faith (though seriously lacking in any verifyable sources) and not BS as the IP asserts. However it is fairly easy to see the IP's point after reviewing the initial version of the page, especially if one assumes that the IP <= 25 years old. So yes, he should not be blocked, but also hopefully he will learn to use some of the methods that don't raise alarm bells on first glance at an edit. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Emmerdale episodes

This might seem quite trivial, but none the less it's frustrating me somewhat. The template Emmerdale episodes is used as a running tally to record episode numbers. Because of constant inconsistancies in date, I decided to change it to use the FULLDATE template which grabs the day when a date is entered. However, another "editor" (I use editor lightly) is persistant in reverting my change, with his reasoning being that "he prefers it the American style". This has nothing to do with cultural differences, as the show in question for the tally is British, coupled with the fact that his change means the day doesn't show, which has pretty much created an edit-war somewhat.

Ok, so that's pretty much the issue. As I said, I know it's trivial and I couldn't really see it as "vandalism", or at least what is normally described as vandalism, but possibly falling into edits without good reason with disrespect towards my civillity (I have been civil on his talk page). What's the best way to approach this? Cheers. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a standard for TV episode stamping? Whilst Emmerdale doesn't fit into a numbering system per se, it's easier it all TV episodic shows follow the same guidelines. Minkythecat (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural rather than television; per WP:MoS (which is 'pedia wide) British related subjects should use Br-En grammar etc. conventions. Project guidelines should generally follow WP where there are multi-cultural applications (not that I wish to suggest that Emmerdale is "cultural" in anything but the loosest sense of the word!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No idea what the situation with the episode numbering is, so I'll leave that for more informed people to resolve, but the matter regarding the date format can be resolved by recourse to WP:DATE and MOS:SYL. Have reverted to the last edit by Bungle and low-level-warned the other user accordingly. Note that my edit made some other change to the episode numbers - that may need to be looked at by someone else. Orderinchaos 04:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the note about date formats and user-specific preferences. I don't believe there is a "set standard" for formatting with this kind of template, but as mentioned before, there is set standards and preferences for date formatting per geographical location. Orderinchaos, the actual numbering you mentioned is negligable to the problem and easily sorted, but my appreciations go to you for referring some useful and noteworthy policies, hopefully finding some resolution. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just calling attention to this one - The user Wingard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is sterile-reverting edits to this template, including my most recent attempt to resolve the issue. A couple of eyes on this one would be good - thanks. Orderinchaos 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This still continues to be an issue and the user in question doesn't seem to be changing his habits or indeed acknowleging there is a problem. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This was archived, however the matter is unresolved, so bringing it back for attention. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest news is the template has been listed for deletion, so the question may be moot soon. Kbthompson (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have given the user a higher level warning, as it seems they've been edit warring this change for 4½ months - since their first edit, in fact. Apart from updating the episodes on this template and the date warring, this user has less than a dozen contributions to the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

@Kbthompson; Regardless as to whether it remains a template or not, the edit conflicts is likely to continue whether it be in the template or in the article. The user in question probably wont stop just because the template may case to exist. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have trouble making myself clear today. That was a heads up, rather than a proposed resolution. Although you might find it easier to defend the date within the article as per MOS:SYL. I've added a talk header to the discussion page. WP:AIV might consider a block after the latest warning. It does seem to be trolling since the user appears to contribute to nothing else. One of the problems is that the template seems very specific in its presentation, most date options display in the user specified preference - and that would give the editor no excuse to change it. Kbthompson (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Posting of personal/contact information on Mulberry High School

Anonymous IP editor 157.127.124.15 (talk · contribs) made this edit to the above mentioned article which he subsequently reverted. Anyone can still go into article history and find this uber-personal information. Forgive me if I sound ignorant but is this something that could or should be deleted from page history?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT would be the best way to go here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the full names of the accused minors still appear in the article. Policy on this? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) You might want to consider if mentioning the names even without the contact information is a good idea. These are kids and I see no value in having the names there in the first place. In my opinion BLP applies here. Could an admin delete and restore to hide the edits by this IP? EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the name, as I also thought this was in violation of BLP, correct me if I'm wrong though. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oversighted. Are there sources for this allegations? If not then I suggest removing it. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been all over the news in the last couple of days. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I blanked the section. No sources and it is not directly related to the school anyway. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is marked resolved with all offending edits oversighted, but the name of the girl who was attacked is still in the edit history. Shouldn't that be oversighted, too? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the edit in which the name of the 16-year-old girl was deleted but not oversighted. her name has not been mentioned in the news because of her age. I think it should be oversighted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This incident was also created as an article in it's own right yesterday. The article was speedily deleted following the filing of an AfD. Herewith the link. [131] Xdenizen (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputes noticeboard

Please see: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Disputes_noticeboard - jc37 20:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious activity with new AfD

Resolved

 – AfD closed by yours truly, user blocked for sockpuppetry by Jpgordon. Bencherlite^Talk 21:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I might be fishing a bit here, but I suspect something quacking here with this AfD. New user, who's very first edit is to nominate Martin Luther King Jr.'s article for AfD to make a point? If this is a sock, I'm not sure of who, but it's very very suspicious to me. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

beat me to it. Speedy close the afd, and by the way, i'm pretty sure this, [132], another edit by this user, is vandalism, but knowing nothing about baseball, i can't be sure.--Jac16888 (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless A-Rod's been sent to the Tampa Bay Rays in a shocker, it's very much vandalism. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Assumed as much, i just didn't want to blindly revert it without being sure. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Knowing nothing about baseball, I've nonetheless reverted that edit. Looked at two sites and they both agreed with the way the article used to be. Note that the edit in question also changed his place of birth (from New York to Managua). -- Why Not A Duck 21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on, you just know this person is going to end up being a sock, or be blocked for trolling or vandalism, isn't there a way to cut to the chase? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

ahem, WP:AGF--Jac16888 (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith is not a suicide pact, this user has been blocked and it is a good block. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an appropriate block to me. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Obviously not here for the betterment of Wikipedia. Very pointy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoax sourcing

IP 68.5.250.146 adds sources he does not even know how to spell. One of his sources is a journal published in Germany in 1868, the article he claims to refer to is written in French, his IP is from the US, and the quarrel is about an Iranian language he considers to be a dialect of Persian. Given his long history of disruptive editing at Amir Taheri I cannot believe that he got hold of this journal, let alone read it. - Here is where he came up with those sources, here is where he obviously culled them from (a list of books on the talk page, not provided by him, and containing exactly the same misspellings/misspacings: nord- ouest / l, Iran / Wiesbadan / Geselaschaft ), and here is what he has to say to that. -- Regards, Ankimai (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)