Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

LorenzoPerosi1898

This user has persistently made extreme POV and unverifiable changes to the Vladimir Horowitz and Arthur Rubinstein pages. When these are corrected, he reverts them back again. Please block him. Thanks. Grover cleveland 01:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

He has since done the same thing at Don Lorenzo Perosi. See here. His attitude is not improving. Grover cleveland 03:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh come off it - hyperbolic praise of pianists and removing a {{fact}} are grounds for blocking him? I've left a note asking him to tone down the enthusiasm, but his intentions are good - he's a newish editor, he needs to be given some latitude (and he also needs to learn that gushing praise is not the correct tone for articles). I've left a note on his talk page. --ajn (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I must second this complaint. This user seems to have a vendetta against both Grover Cleveland and myself, and has made a point of going into articles and removing cited, verifiable statements, and replacing them with his own opinions. He has been warned several times and is batantly crosssing the line. THD3 21:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I must also object to his use of the term "gay" flowery language, in a comment about an edit on the Evgeny Kissin page. To the best of my knowledge, homophobia is not a Wikipedia policy. THD3 21:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a general misunderstanding of late as to the true intent of WP:NPOV and WP:V. To state a "fact" (or, if you prefer, a "generally held belief") which is supported by virtually all sources and contradicted by few if any, it is not appropriate to slap a "" tag on, just for one's jollies. "Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents." One DOES NOT have to provide a source for such a statement!!! There is where y'all are a little unclear about the rules here. To even attempt to name "one source" for the above comment about Lincoln is ridiculous. If, instead, you know of a source that contradicts it, it is your onus to find one. Perhaps you also disagree that Lincoln was the 16th president. If you think he was the 15th or 17th, go prove it. Slapping here and there might be enjoyable to you, but that is not the appropriate response to accepted fact. This clarification is intended not towards any one editor in particularly, but clearly it has become a trend, and a very immature one. Best, LorenzoPerosi1898 00:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln is a bad example - he's guilty of winning a Civil War apparently costing more than twice as many lives as Saddam Hussein's Iraq Civil War in 1991 (Saddam's Civil War was imposed on him - I suppose it's possible that Lincoln was in the same position). Alternatively, perhaps contributors here are required to abide by an AF (American Friendly) point of view, in which case I'm sorry, I didn't notice this injunction in my Wikipedia Welcome Pack. PalestineRemembered 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, PalestineRemembered is positively correct. Abe Lincoln was not the 16th President. How silly of me! LorenzoPerosi1898 09:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your example stating that Lincoln is one of greatest presidents is simply an opinion. It's a widely shared opinion, but it is not an "accepted fact". Accepted by whom? Him being the 16th president on the other hand is a fact found in most general reference sources and is easily locatable by anyone - it's undebatable and will never change. Greatest president on the other hand is, as I've mentioned, simply the opinion or the Point of View of a large number of people, and even that could be subject to change. Yankees76 21:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Usage of images in signatures

WP:SIG is a guideline on Wikipedia as of now, and those who flaunt outrageous signatures with images in them can get away with it. I think it is time to set a precedent here and make is a policy on wikipedia so that usage of images on Wikipedia is discouraged. Alkivar (talk · contribs) (who is incidentally an administrator on en.wiki) has been flaunting an image in his signature since a long time. Reminders [1] to remove image by me and other users have been ignored by Alkivar and he conviniently chose to ignore them and clear his talk page for archiving [2] and he continues to have the image in his signature. I would like the community to adjudicate on this matter.

Reference– User talk:Alkivar

More about the problems that images cause can be read here — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 09:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't know much about the server load question but I do note that when uploading images for articles last night, the image server was struggling. Signatures are an expression of users' individualism and we should resist tampering unless it's necessary, but I personally do not like images in signatures. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of many editors who still use images in their signatures. If they do, they should be reprehended and persuaded to change the signature to something more acceptable. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Um. Do you mean reprimanded or apprehended? I'm picturing chasing Alkivar around with a big butterfly net... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reprehend v.t. - rebuke. (see reprehensible) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. You learn something new every day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla. This is another heavy handed way of dealing with something which is not really a problem except in the minds of a few. By the way, mocking someone for mistyping, is not exactly in the spirit of WP:civil or AGF...especially when English is not their native language and it is bloody obvious what they meant.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you're making this a big deal, Nearly Headless Nick, as Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has already pointed out it is a guideline, not yet a policy. Maybe this does deserve discussion but not in the manner that you are approaching it with - threats to block him, posting on WP:AN/I, and just general aggresion and disrespect towards a fellow admin, whom I'm assuming, has done nothing else to you. If this is an issue, it should be discussed in much more peaceful terms. Please calm down.--Konst.able 09:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It may not be a big issue but then -Ril-'s confusing signature did end up going to the ArbCom. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that seems to have been a ~~~~ for a signature and then replaced by some abusive comments. Alkivar had an svg image (which is just a 2kb piece of XML code by the way) - I don't see how this warrants cold orders followed by threats of being blocked.--Konst.able 09:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check this too, which was posted by some user as an anon, probably by mistake and was removed from his talk page by Alkivar. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That IP address post was posted by a vandal (see this other edit). Presumably this is User:DickyRobert my regular stalker, who presumably also posted as Seattle Lonelyguy here and IrregularSignature here.  ALKIVAR™ 20:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Konstable, please check this user's talk page carefully, and you will see the number of times, I (and other users) have asked this user to remove the image. Images in signature are a problem for Wikipedia, and this user has been blocked by an administrator for flaunting a confusing signature with image(s) in it. The fellow admin you are referring to does not understand Wikipedia and its processes and has assumed bad faith with me and perhaps other editors (check his user talk page). What I am proposing here is to ban usage of images in signatures, and persuading other users to change their signatures by removing the images. Perhaps you should see the acidulous language he has used to reply to me. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I had posted the warning only as a last resort. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nick, this seems like a classic WP:PERF issue... I tend to doubt that Alkivar's signature is really destroying the Wiki, but if it (and others) were having any significant impact at all the devs would deal with it. Trying to make policy on the basis of 'this is better for performance' has consistently caused nothing but aggravation and thus is itself strongly discouraged. As is repeatedly arguing a point and/or threatening users. Have you clocked the nanoseconds 'wasted' by Alkivar's signature image... and does that add up to more or less than the wasted time and aggravation being caused by your argument over it? --CBD 13:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried explaining to Nick that I have spoken with dev's over this back around 1 July, 2005 and they told me it caused negligable server load and that it was harmless. When User:R3m0t had initially said something on my talk page about the sig image.  ALKIVAR™ 20:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is much more to the problems that images cause than performance. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support an outright ban on any images in signatures. It's entirely unnecessary and the drawbacks far outweigh the non-existent benefits. --Cyde Weys 20:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How about also banning code in a signature that affects how a user's cursor appears? That's not very helpful. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat off from the topic, what's with the "Comments left by anonymous editors may be removed without warning...." banner? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk)

I have a regular stalker named User:DickyRobert who posts alot of garbage on there as an anonymous IP, or with a SPA. Its put there to tell people that I may wipe it as vandalism by accident, there is no secret conspiracy to keep down anonymous users :)  ALKIVAR™ 20:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Its quite different from removing good faith messages posted on talk page, than removing vandalism attacks. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy is what wikipedians do. Guidelines do carry weight, otherwise, if only policy has to be followed, why have guidelines at all? -- Drini 22:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought editing was what Wikipedians do. The framework of the encyclopedia is its weakest part by far in what i've seen so far, there seems to be no method of making guidelines other than just saying it is one and saying anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. People Powered 18:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

1st note, i've not read any of the comments above... so this is a straight braindump. Anyway, my take is that there are bigger problems..., but the wacky sigs do piss me off from time to time. Pissing time away talking about images and the like isn't useful. We need to revert to a standard sig, including at least user page and talk page to meet the main reasons for non-std sigs. Turning off user-specified signatures should be do-able. Thanks/wangi 00:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's strongly discouraged to use images in signatures these days. They should ban all images in signatures, though this is only a guideline NOT a policy. I hope Alkivar will remove his image in his signature and just have text in it. I support any ban on images in signature, as it can be irritating. What does it give to the particular user anyway? --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There has to be a compromise somewhere. —freak(talk) ☢ 21:08, Oct. 14, 2006 (UTC)

It is gratifying to know that we have reached a point in the evolution of Wikipedia where we have managed to solve all the large, pressing, important issues, and can now spend our time arguing over small, inconsequential details like the aesthetic implications and the server drain caused by a 2k, 18x16 pixel image file. Ξxtreme Unction 14:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys how does everyone like my new signature? -- S t e e l 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh! As long as the servers don't crash, I like it! :-) People Powered 22:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Outrageous. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My one and biggest consern with regards to images in signatures is what happens when the image is to be deleted (eitehr since a better one have replaced it or it has been given a "better" name and so on, granted this seems unlikely in Alkivar's particular case but still, if we allow some images as "safe" it's hard to deny others based on that presidence). This have happened several times in the past for example images of national flags have been revamped and renamed to various standards several times, and flags that where often used in signatures therefore where a LOT harder to replace in articles and such because the file links where absolutely bursting with talk and AFD pages and so forth (agrivated by the fact there there is still no easy way to see more than the "top 500" pages an image is used in). Personaly I can live with people having 5 lines of markup as theyr signature (but I would ask them to trim it down), but I don't think images should be used. Granted Alkivar's use is fairly "safe" it's a "stable" image not likely to be deleted any time soon, but still generaly speaking images in signatures are bad that's why we have a guideline that strongly advice against it, and when people see and amin using an image anyway, any image it will undermine what little "power" than guideline has because people will figure if it's ok for an admin to do it they can too. Trying to explain to people why theyr image is bad while other images are ok is hard work, and I would ratehr not wake up one day and find flashy animated gifs runnign all our talk pages, and the "myspace generation" do love theyr flashy stuff. --Sherool (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it will be a lot difficult to gain consensus here. I shall post a proposal on WT:SIG. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Will wait for sometime. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it extremely ironic when I see an admin criticise another admin for not following a guideline, and then that very admin violates another point of that same guideline. (i.e. WP:SIG#Customizing your signature) —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we have had enough of your strawman arguments, Malber. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 09:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this matter has been blown way out of proportion. What could have been settled with a few lines of civil dialogue, has now escalated into messy ego-brawl. The image in Alkivar's sig definitely isn't going to crash the servers. However several rookie users look up to the conduct and actions of experienced users and admins for guidance and mimic it themselves. I used to have a image in my signature which I copied (quite ironically) from nathanrdotcom's who helped me out in my initial days. Similarly several newbies may look at Alkivar's sig and say "Hey that looks cool!" and decide to put flashy images in their own signatures which will cause a drain on the servers and subsequent uglier problems. I feel the involved people should take their egos off the line and try to reach an amicable compromise. Thanks --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Srikeit -- Samir धर्म 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You can rest assured that I do not sport any grudge here with Alkivar, but I have a problem with images in signatures. This string was posted here so that we could gain a communal imprimatur, before taking any actions. If the concerned user had responded to my notices, this would not have been here at all. In my opinion, administrators should respect guidelines and act maturely. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's another user in support of Nick's original point. Images in sigs really are ridiculous, and I'm in support of getting people to remove them immediately - but politely. A little community pressure seems like a reasonable way to accomplish this, but I don't really endorse anything more severe than that. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Images in signatures are kind of distracting. Also, I don't see the point in renaming the links in a signature. The links in signatures would be easier to use if they were in the same place on every signature. It's not so pleasant search for the letter in someone's username that will direct me to that user's talk page. Jecowa 11:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

An admin placing in user talk the section header Warning and threatening a block based on a guideline and not on policy would seem to be actions that were not in good faith. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And how about this? The user did not heed to this message and instead archived his talk page minutes after this notice was posted. Do you think he would have responded if I had posted the same notice once again? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Pointing to your own diffs is precisely my point, Headless. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And your point being...? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black and fair use images

User is delinking fair use images and later is speedy deleting them. User is only "allowing" one fairuse image per character page.

Firstly the admin revert wared on orphaning two fair use images used in Keiichi Morisato without a discussion. He later speedy-deleted the two images he revert warred on. His delete came after his 3rd revert.

"Image:Keiichi Morisato (Oh My Goddess! Manga).png": fair-use orphan, one of three images being used to illustrate one single character

"Image:Keiichi Morisato (Adventures of Mini-Goddess).png": fair-use orphan, one of three images being used to illustrate one single character

Afterwards, he edited a heavy-use template accordingly causing havoc on many articles and practicaly orphaning many images.

Furthermore he has threatened to block me. In addition he has full protected the template.

Aside from Oh My Goddess! related aricles, user has removed fair use images such as this which in my view is clearly approporate since it is the historic logo.

--Cat out 20:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That infobox had four fair-use images in it to identify a single character. The infobox (up until I removed them) had capacity for nine. This fails WP:FUC #3 and #8 miserably. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. It contributes significantly to the topic.

• Keiichi having and maintaining Lind's an angel is one of the most signigicant events involving the character. Hence it meets #8. I can make a detailed analysis per fair use imaged used on OMG articles here but I'd rather write that in the actual articles.
• The style of the series drawing was altered significantly on the past two decades. Having an image per animation generation is only approporate. Featured article Superman for instance has multiple fair use images. Hence it meets #3.
  • Furthermore I'd like to add #3 of FUC does not mean ther has to be one and only one image.

--Cat out 21:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is important to remember what our ultimate goals here are. We are creating a free content, freely redistributable encyclopedia. The use of non-free images detracts from that, and are only acceptable when absolutely necessary. I think AMIB correctly identified an instance in which they weren't absolutely necessary. --Cyde Weys 21:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is, when are they absolutely necessary, and when aren't they? And who determines this? People Powered 22:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Different editors decide when the photos are needed or not needed, but there is no set rule on what is "allowed" and what is "not allowed." If there is a short article with many fair use photos, some can be removed. But if there is a long article with maybe two fair use images, none might need to be removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also important to understand that we are an encyclopedia and illustrations are necesary. The procedure of weather or not an image qualifies under fair use is not revert warring, speedy deleting the images in question, threatening with blocks, and etc...

--Cat out 21:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I threatened CCat with a block when he said that he refused to discuss the infobox on talk, and was only waiting for 24 hours to expire so he could go back to reverting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Your first talk post started with a "WTF"... --;Cat out 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think discovering that an infobox has eight parameters for eight different images merits a WTF. How huge would that infobox be? Yikes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are really serious about discussing this, I'd like to see some evidence of good faith. How aboult undeleting those two images and reverting the template the way it was. Images can be deleted later on at the end of the discussion assuming thats the outcome. --Cat out 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that, as it is a copyright issue, this cannot be done unless the images are proven to meet the criteria in WP:FUC, which has not yet been done yet.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Cyde -- we should use fair use images minimally. We can't have galleries, and don't need to illustrate every tiny detail - to be safe (and remain encyclopedic), the idea of one or two fair use images per article is pretty safe. Anything more goes against both safety and is overdoing it, especially for these kinds of articles. --Improv 00:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To give anyone passing by an idea of the sort of "differences" being illustrated by these many redundant images, I invite someone to consider Image:Skuld (Ah! My Goddess The Movie).png and Image:Skuld (Ah! My Goddess TV).png, both of which were, up until recently, in the infobox for Skuld (Oh My Goddess!). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

For one her skin color is darker in the move... The uniform she is wearing is significantly different as well. The fact that she is flying itself is en entierly important ilustration. Skuld throughout the manga and TV series did not display much of a magic tallent. --Cat out 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree entirely with AMIB. Overuse of fair use images within an infobox is not acceptable and does fall foul of WP:FUC #3 and #8. If we allow such things to occur then it is simply opening the floodgates to potential copyright infringement problems.

It comes down to whether or not those images are significant enough to be included. If they are then they should be included within the article along with, as AMIB states, commentary (which should explain why they are significant). Doing it via infoboxes does not allow for such commentary.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that images were deleted without a discussion. I can put the images outside the infobox with ease however a wikipedia bug is making me hesitate. Section edit links are misaligned when multiple thumbnail images are used.

That still does not explain the two deletions.

--Cat out 21:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you've got in mind some use for the first image deleted, I'd be happy to undelete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because one of them was nothing more than a shadow. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Which was actualy a very very notable thing. Thats keiichis only appearance in the mini serries. But perhaps you are right, mentioning him being a mere shadow can be done with thext... :/ Still the manga image should be fine. --Cat out 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to have an image of every single cameo appearance every character makes ever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read my post. --Cat out 22:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I read it. You might notice that Ash Kechum, while overburdened with images, doesn't and shouldn't have images of his cameo appearances in Pokémon Chronicles or the various pre-movie shorts, where his absence is conspicuous. That cameo appearance can simply be described with prose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt explain why you deleted the manga image. --Cat out 16:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've fully protected {{Infobox Oh My Goddess! character}}, as Dynamo ace (talk · contribs) was reverting to a version with all eight image parameters. I invite review of this protection, as my role is a bit complicated; his revert also removed a ton of work I did to remove meta-templates from the larger template, so I rolled back to the last version with no edits from me other than the removal of the excess images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Cyde here. AMIB did the right thing, indeed. Fair use images should be minimally used. I see no reason for decoration of the article pages with unneeded images. I suggest that User:Cool Cat must discuss on relevant talk pages before reverting the actions of an administrator an established user. In this case, AMIB's warning came as highly warranted. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Support AMIB. Good call. Nandesuka 12:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I see. The complaint is that AMIB is very very closed to a discussion and that he is taking actions without a discussion to the point of endorsing his actions by using admin tools. His actions on the template have nothing to do with copyrights since the template itself is released under GNU.

Weather each fair use image is approporate or not should be investigated on a case by case basis. The "number" of images used is irrelevant, few is of course better and 2-5 is what I'd call "few". The copyright issues can be subject to a debate and this isnt the approporate place for that.

A further note. AMIB being an administrator means absolutely nothing to me. Wikipedia is an anti-elitist comunity, infact that is the foundation of our comunity.

--Cat out 16:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey you are right about the administrator part. But please respect consensus and discussions. Happy editing. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please consider trusting the good faith judgement of other editors. If it is not blindingly obvious that the unfree media satisfies our Wikipedia:Fair use criteria to the casual observer, that is a problem. Jkelly 22:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support AMIB. Also like to point out that few is contextual. Steve block Talk 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Durrus and District History

Hi. Durrus adds very much to Durrus and District History (all is made by him). The page grows uneccessarily long and it is difficult to read. What is the policy on such edits? --Kristod 20:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You should explain to the user the need for concision and avoiding historically-trivial content. Otherwise, if it's still too long, it can be split to subarticles. But first, it needs a major cleanup. The problem with single purpose edits is that they usually involve a failure to observe the standards set for Wikipedia entries, so this needs to be pointed out to the editor (i.e. s/he should at least review a few history of articles). El_C 00:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

talk: Chatham Borough, New Jersey

I have been editing this article on Chatham, New Jersey and the one for Chatham Township. I am running into someone who resorts to vandalism of a chart in Wikipedia to "prove his point" -- what is my recourse?

This Wikipedia image that lists the communities in Morris County and shows them on a map, directory to Morris County communities was altered just a few minutes ago by you to read as you wish it to... that is vandalism and I will report it if you do not correct it -- your behavior is pathetic and unprofessional.

O rly? I'd call it professional, actually. I find errors and I fix them. The Census bureau does not know of a town by the name of Chatham, NJ. So you're just making something up. Go ahead and report it. —lensovet–talk – 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

your signature and time stamp are on the changes to the chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

I said, go ahead and report me —lensovet–talk – 20:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment:The Census Bureau should not be used as a standard on New Jersey geography; they do not understand it, and never have. I don't pretend to know Morris County well enough to know whether Chatham is common usage there. Septentrionalis 15:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute - not something requiring admin attention. Stop attacking each other and just write out the fact that the name 'Chatham' often gets used to describe what might more precisely be called 'Chatham borough', 'Chatham township', and/or BOTH of those together. Put a nice explanation like that on each page, have 'Chatham, NJ' itself as a disambiguation page to the two articles, and off you go. If you can't manage that... see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Or just meet down at the train station and duke it out under the mulberry trees. :] --CBD 17:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

CBD, I know you're only making a joke here, but not too long ago two people attempted to settle a flame war in a shopping mall parking lot, with lethal results. (I'd hope that Wikipedians would be too smart to imitate this as a means to resolve conflicts, but some days I have my doubts.) -- llywrch 19:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry. I thought it was too absurd to actually be contemplated (i.e. fisticuffs over what the name 'Chatham' refers to), but as the link you cite shows... the world can always be just a little more absurd than you thought it could. --CBD 13:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry too. Now we can all feel nostalgic for the good old days of just a few weeks ago, when the worst that anyone could expect to happen in a flame war is that someone gets banned from Wikipedia for incivility or threats. :( -- llywrch 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The battle should be in the spring. I do not want to participate or even watch. I want to eat all the mulberries I can get ahead of the birds -- it has been a (long ) lifetime habit to wait for them to turn from green, to white, to purple... then eat all within reach! The town? Chatham, New Jersey -- renowned for the best mulberries along the entire railroad, and the reason that Chatham Township never had a "town"! Revert the name, this is nonsense, borough is a definiton of the form or government, the borough of -- you guessed it -- Chatham -- since the 1800s when a village called Chatham withdrew from a township along with two other villages that were along the new railroad -- and population increased greatly in all three. Read the history if you must -- resort to the facts -- seems to be a novel idea among some of the participants in this dispute, but it still remains a handy tool for people building articles in an encyclopedia!

--- and --- in order to get all the discussion on one page most of this has been moved to the article that I recommend be returned to Chatham, New Jersey, please continue there...

Possible Self Promotion that has existed for almost two years

Section removed; please refer to AFD if you want it deleted. This has absolutely nothing to do with administrators. Ral315 (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mass external linking to libcom.org

Hi everyone, I just noticed the contributions of Catch (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who has added only external links to the site Libcom in articles since October 7. The libcom group describes themselves as "a small collective of libertarian communists based in and around London", and maintain "a library archive of historical and theoretical writings from a class struggle perspective." [3]. I've rolled back all of Catch's external link edits, but now I'm too sure if I acted too hastily considering a linksearch for libcom.org turns up 339 links to the site in Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikipedia:External links states that preference should be given to open directories, so are we meant to tolerate the wholesale linking to such partisan web directories when they're not being cited as an article reference? --  Netsnipe  ►  21:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you've taken the correct course of action. El_C 00:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the 339 other links? --  Netsnipe  ►  09:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like spam, personally. Kilo•T 15:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed three instances where Catch was only correcting a broken link and your fix actually re-broke the link: Marxist Humanism, Raya Dunayevskaya, and Johnson-Forest Tendency. I think all of those links were acceptable, since they linked to articles by the people discussed in the Wiki entries. Oops, forgot signature. Franklin Dmitryev 18:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username?

Does anyone think that the username WikiTruth (talk · contribs) is inappropriate? He/she claims not to be associated with Wikitruth.info, but I think it would be a good idea for the person to change usernames...any thoughts? —Khoikhoi 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this is... truthfully... a clearly case of a WP:POINT-violative user name and should be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 00:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a case of WP:POINT? The user signed up in December 2005, over four months before wikitruth.info came into being. You're indef blocking someone because a website came along later and used their name? Mexcellent 00:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, was not claiming WP:POINT. I do, however, think it would (now) prove difficult for the user to operate effectively with such a wikisensitive username. This will probably help him/her in the long run. Note that the account only has 30-or so edits. El_C 00:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It certainly would be hard now, since he's been blocked through no fault of his own. Why not let it go until it actually becomes a problem? This kind of action is what turns people off to contributing. Why don't you suggest a username change and guide him through the process, rather than just blocking him? Or better yet, just leave him be, since he hasn't caused even the slightest amount of trouble. Mexcellent 00:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That the User:WikiTruth account predates the Wikitruth website is of no consequence (though it is an obvious indicator of the user's good intent) with respect to the inadvertant harrassment the user is likely to suffer in the future, thereby eliminating needless friction. I think my indefinite block note reflects this (i.e. no blame is assigned to the user in any way). Choosing a different username should not be a great undertaking. But perhaps the block was mis-placed. Feel free to overturn it and attend to the matter as you see fit. El_C 01:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, I think you should unblock him so he at least has the chance to keep his contributions and continue editing, rather than making someone start all over again. — Moe 03:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he's an editor in good standing. Suggesting a name change before an indef block would have been nice. Rx StrangeLove 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There's only 30-odd edits, starting over didn't seem a big deal. Feel free to overturn my block, though. El_C 04:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with El C. It's only 30 edits. Unless some of them are of major importance (extensive clean up, saving an article from deletion, ect.), starting a new account isn't a big deal.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 05:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Meh, 30 edits or not, I still would have liked to see a warning or something before immediate action was taken. It's up to you really.. — Moe 05:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think the user needed to be warned about anything, s/he didn't do anything wrong. El_C 05:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Put yourself in his position, you even said he didn't do anything wrong, don't you think he's going to think he did something wrong? He had the account since last December. I would think I did something wrong if I was mostly inactive and I came back one day to find I couldn't edit anymore. This could potentially drive a user away from Wikipedia. All thats left to consider if it's really a good-faith contributor your blocking indef or not, but the ball's in your court, so to speak.. — Moe 05:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see why s/he should feel s/he did anything wrong. I did not think my note suggested wrongdoing. Anyway, I left the matter to the discretion of at least two users whom I place confidence in (Mexcellent and Rx StrangeLove), so I'm inclined to do nothing and rather have either of them take the lead from now on. El_C 06:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked this user and asked him/her to get a username change. This user has made valuable contributions and has received an award from another user for some of it! Wikipedia:Changing username is a perfectly good option. How would you like to be blocked because some website was created with a similar name as your username?--Konst.able 08:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like it just fine! Anyway, 30 edits — I make that in an hour. Just didn't think it was a big deal. El_C 08:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

i.e. I simply did not think anyone with 30 edits would bother to go through the process of changing their username. I sure know I wouldn't. El_C 08:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I counted 57 edits. Well, users who are not as experienced in all this would probably not find it a nice thing to get blocked. I see no harm in him having it until he applies to have it changed. It's not like it's Randomvandal (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) or Weiner (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log).--Konst.able 09:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I should have paid closer attention, that's significantly more edits than I thought. El_C 09:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't block the ip, just that specific username, so I thought reregistering was to be a flash. El_C 09:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, check this out... re User:Tell the Wikitruth

Probably worth noting that per the above I blocked Tell the Wikitruth this evening, and posted {{Usernameblock}} on their talk page. However the interesting part? Their next edit... Patted myself on the back for that one! :) Glen 12:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think is connected to the above case. It's clearly not the same user.. If WikiTruth (talk · contribs) was a Blu Aardvark sockpuppet, he probably would have been more active and would have (probably) vandalized something. WikiTruth was a constructive editor. I'm not too associated with "Wikitruth sockpuppets", but it seems like newer one's would be associated with the website. User:WikiTruth was here on Wikipedia before the website even opened, so it's hard to say if he is associated with them. — Moe 16:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh no I wasn't implying any corelation between the two other than a coincidental stroke of luck that this topic was being discussed (and thus Mr Aardvark blocked) Glen 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No user should be blocked just because their name is similar to the name of a website that scrutinizes Wikipedia. Doing this only advertises the site. I didn't know this site existed until it was mentioned here. At most this user should have been warned that a few Wikipedians might be confused and perhaps offended by the user name "Wikitruth." Blocking him for such a silly reason only reinforces the idea that Wikipedia is as messed up as [wikitruth.info] says it is. I would prefer that the user name "Wikitruth" go to a good user that helps improve Wikipedia as opposed to just sitting as an indefinitely blocked account forever. Jecowa 08:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're saying the name is a coincidence, that's absurd. The above phrase was created specifically as a way to troll wikipedia. --InShaneee 14:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Go to urbandictionary.com and look up Wikitruth. It refers to Wikiality and not the wikitruth website. Anomo 21:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User User:Nlu abused his administration

User:Nlu reverted article blindly without reading the article (Baedal, Hwanguk). These two nations are myth, so hairwizard91 added the category of mythical nation. But, Nlu reverted it without reading it.

In addition, Nlu's adminstrative editing was very weird. Wiman Joseon was edited by hairwizard91 with cited references. However, Nlu reverted to the previous version with no references, Nlu added the Wiman Joseon to the categories of "Category:Articles lacking sources", and then Nlu semi-protected the article. The edited version by hairwizard91 has more reference and is confident. But, the reverted version by Nlu has no sources and cited references. He did not followed NPOV especially about the korean history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.210.12.141 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A check indicated that the above IP is an open proxy. Blocked indefinitely, and I have no doubt that it was the same user as Hairwizard91. --Nlu (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that User:Nlu has abused his administrator rights a little by blocking User:Hairwizard91 for vandalism. I don't know if Hairwizard91 was using sockpuppets or not, but he was definitely not vandalizing, placing non-NPOV statements, or placing spam into the two articles mentioned above. Consider this edit in which Nlu removes a source added by Hairwizard91 and attributes it to spam. I don't think he even read the source before he removed it. The source he removed was an English translation of the book that these Mythological cities come from. Nlu also continues to remove the Category:Korean_mythology tags from these two articles. In my opinion Hairwizard91 should be unblocked immediately and the semi-protected state of the Baedalguk article removed. Jecowa 08:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote

There is still a lot of argument on its talk page that this cannot be a guideline because (1) it didn't follow the proper process for making guidelines, despite the fact that we have no such process, (2) people allege that Wikipedia uses voting all the time (such as in AFD) and therefore we may not advise against voting mentality, or (3) it is said that Wikipedia should adopt more formal mechanisms related to strict voting and that therefore we may not write down current practice.

Voting mentality is harmful. Calling for straw polls at arbitrary times is also harmful, as it tends to preclude discussion and compromise. Not using (majority) voting is a long-standing practice. An essay against voting is not going to help because most new users ignore essays as "just a random user's opinion".

I would really appreciate some experienced people giving feedback on the subject on the talk page here; last time I asked, I had about a dozen admins chiming in but their words have basically been ignored, so please try again. >Radiant< 08:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Now rewritten from scratch in an effort to better describe current practice, Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote/Draft. Comments welcome. >Radiant< 09:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that the negative in the title is a problem. If it were "Discuss more, count less" or something, there would be a greater likelihood of overcoming resistance. We do vote, and we do discuss, and our discussions carry with them votive matters and judgments, so it's sort of impossible to tell anyone not to vote. So long as "don't vote" can be read, by either those who hate "process" or those who believe in "process," as "Do as you will shall be the whole of the law," it's going to be a monumental effort to try to move forward. On substance, we might all even agree that we take into consideration all voices, compare them to policy, and then act in a way most likely to generate consent, but if that is called a vote or a discussion will enable bad actors on either side. For every person wanting to halt proceedings to say, "But you failed by 69/31%," there is someone wanting to say, "Notavote! I am elect." In other words, the wording is very important and highly charged, even if the actual ideal practice is entirely rational and beneficial. Geogre 15:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I hear alot of people complaiing about voting, but all the "votes" I see around here are not votes. They are polls so that people can clarify their opinions. In most cases it is a boolean problem siuch as featured picture, approve or don't, or AfD, delete or don't.

Even then, the tally is not treated strictly mathematically, but instead the value of the arguement is taken into account. It seems to be that there is not voting going an here and that we are, and have been, acting by consensus. HighInBC 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• My point is that you need to define "vote" and then understand the connotations of "vote" for all users. The arguments aren't about votes. They're about what votes mean connotatively. I am against any AfD, for example, where people say "delete" or "keep" and then sign. That's a vote. I think everyone has to provide a rationale. Having done that, it's not merely a vote in a strict sense, but a vote coupled with a discussion. On the other hand, some people want no restraint on the actions of those who they consider "higher up." Thus, they might cite "not a vote" as a justification for deleting an article against an overwhelming consensus to keep on an AfD. (I'm sticking to AfD as the least controversial. It all gets worse from there.) Therefore, I might say that "AfD is not a vote" and mean one thing, and another person might say "AfD is not a vote" and mean something almost 180 degrees from me. Similarly, if I see someone trying to codify "we do not vote," I might be so resentful or fearful of those 180 degrees from me that I oppose it, even though, in essence, we are almost all in agreement. Geogre 14:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to intimidate me

[4][5][6][7] these are attempts to intimidate me because I edit under my full name, and anyone can find this using a web search. I have not commited vandalism or pulled out of mediation twice. Would an admin be so kind as to remove these from my talk page history? --Mihai cartoaje 12:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be really dimwitted today as I fail to see the intimidation or even the slightest insinuation re the use or knowledge of personal information... can you please clarify? To me it seems the comments are civil and well intentioned... Glen 12:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My username is my full name. The edits have pejorative edit summaries. Also, what is written in the edits is false. I have not commited any vandalism and I have not failed to complete two mediations. I also have not removed content from Wikipedia.

Because I edit using my full name, anyone can find my talk page using a web search for my name.--Mihai cartoaje 12:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether the allegations in the edits are false is a different issue from what you are raising here. As far as I can tell, these are requests for you to stop particular edits, and there are no threats, veiled or otherwise, to affect you personally outside of Wikipedia. Like Glen, I fail to understand why the ability of people to find your talk page would amount to intimidation. --khaosworks (talk * contribs) 13:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The edit summaries are not pejorative in the slightest and in fact you have been taken to mediation twice and pulled out: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-12 Schizophrenia and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-29 Schizophrenia. You may want to rethink your claims. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It was me who asked for the first mediation. The second mediation was not correctly summarised. The mediator wrote this [8] after which I commented this [9] and after that I was not asked any more questions and it ended like this [10]. --Mihai cartoaje 13:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You conveniently skipped this comment

Mihai, it's a discussion not an interview. There are points above which you have not answered. This all sounds like delaying tactics to me. - Vaughan 08:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

While you did indeed start the first mediation the closer of it states you requested the mediation end. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well if he's making false claims about your involvement in mediation then I guess that's something, but the edits (and the 4 edit summaries: Added warning about balnking [sic] text on schizophrenia page / schizophrenia / fix header / restore my comments) do not really constitute an attempt to intimidate you.

I have left them a note requesting more information and will let you know, however in the meantime I strongly suggest you head along to our changing username request page as you do seem very concerned about your anonymity (or feelings re lack thereof) Thanks Glen 13:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no threats in those diffs nor pejorative comments. The messages you got are standard messages. Also the use of your full name is a decision that you make, if it makes you uncomfortable close your current account and create a new one with a nickname. HighInBC 04:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How do I close my current account? --Mihai cartoaje 12:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is what you want: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish

Inaproporate username? User:Kurdt Kobain

Since Kurdt Kobain is a recently deceased person, I think it is a poor choice of a username. --Cat out 16:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Recently deceased? Kurt Cobain has been dead for 12 years - I'm guess this is a fan (Kurdt Kobain was a mispelling of his name on an album cover). Are you suggesting that someone will think that this is the ghost of Cobain or something?

--Charlesknight 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Jesus, User:George Washington, User:Jon Stewart have all been blocked or would be blocked if created. By convention famous people are poor choice to be usernames and are often not descriptive enough. --Cat out 16:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

12 years isn't that long, and Curt is still popular now, with material released quite recently. The name was used by Cobain in autographs as well as on an album. Imo it's inappropriate per WP:U. Deizio talk 16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, these aren't exactly comparable to Kurt Cobain. Jesus is a religious figure, and WP:UN treats names based on religious figures differently than names based on other people. User:George Washington was a sock of a vandal (and I don't see anything in his block log). Jon Stewart is still alive. jgp ^T_C 16:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we'd be better of if he volunteerly chose a different username (someone should explain why in greater detail to him) but in the event he doesnt what should be done? --Cat out 16:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

But isn't the convention with real people to stop confusion with the living? What's the problem if someone has been dead for at least ten years? Should I get a new username? --Charlesknight 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Checking WP:U it says Names of well-known living or recently deceased people, such as Chuck Norris or Ken Lay, unless you are that living person. If you are, say so on your user page. - Kurt Conbain is neither living or recently deceased, I don't see any problem with this username under WP:U. --Charlesknight 17:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And his name was neither Kurdt nor Kobain. If it's not acceptable, would Kort Kurbain be? How about Curt Chilblain? References to names are rather different from use of the actual name. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe he ever signed his name as either of those, or was listed as either of those on an album. This isn't exactly a serious contravention of WP:U, but if Cool Cat wants to have a quiet word in his ear and point out the guidelines I think that would be fine. Deizio talk 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am merely exploring the issue. Mind the '?' on the section header.

I do not see a User:Charles Knight nor do I see his relevance. I think it would be prudent to disalow historic figures to be usernames. I'd rather not be editing an article about Che discussing it with User:Che.

--Cat out 20:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

and that's why you rushed off and blocked the username because you were just "discussing it". That's a bullshit move. You asked, many of us said "no it's no problem" but hey, you've got your jackboots and had to use them. --Charlesknight 08:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, futher investigation reveals that (as far as I can determine) you are not an admin - so why are you placing templates that (falsely I assume) tell users that they are blocked? --Charlesknight 08:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

All you had to do was find the block log which would tell you all you need to know. Personally I see nothing at all wrong with the username. I don't think Kurt Cobain is in any danger of being impersonated or defamed at this point, which is the spirit of the username policy. Grandmasterka 08:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone decided to block him and I notified the person getting blocked so as to avoid alienating the individual. --Cat out 10:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

YOu can ask anyone at Arbcom and they will tell you policy isnt meant to be followed by the letter, that is for wikilawyering, its meant to follow the spirit of the policy, and I do not believe this name would be violating that spirit since its not spelled correctly and well the man is dead over 10 years now. If they start editing the Kurt Cobain article in a defamatory way then ban them, else just leave it as such, the person isnt living and its not even spelled right. --NuclearZer0 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont see a reason to involve the arbcom. --Cat out 13:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Who said we should? I am making a point that policy = spirit, not letter of the law. As pointed out above I also do not feel this person is violating that spirit. --NuclearZer0 14:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Is dead Cobain (misspelled) to be treated more reverently than dead Milne? (Note User:AA_Milne.) A rhetorical question, I suppose, as I really don't care. -- Hoary 13:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Kerr avon

User is posting legal threats, and what he purports are real life details of another user at Talk:Derek Smart. I have told him to stop issuing legal threats and to stop playing internet detective. JBKramer 18:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Derek Smart article has been a source of edit warring for a long time. A major contributor has been Supreme_Cmdr [11] who is a SPA [12]. Numerous discussions on the Derek Smart talk page have centered around the discussion as to if Supreme_Cmdr is Smart himself[13]. As such when Supreme_Cmdr's IP address was posted on his page, a traceroute revealed that both Supreme_Cmdr and Derek Smart have the same ISP. Given the background to the above long discussions to the identity of Supreme_Cmdr, I felt that posting the above information would be relevant.

However once JBKramer pointed out that is not acceptable according to wiki guidlines, I have indicated by willingness to stop posting the above information about Supreme_cmdr.

The legal threats were not against the wikipedia, it was said in a matter of fact way as regarding to Supreme_Cmdr's serious allegation of racism and racist discrimination [14] against me. No action was taken against Supreme_cmdr, and I was feeling bitter about it. I come from a poor third world country and I am not at all capable of legal action against anyone, so that should put that matter to rest as well.

Kerr avon 18:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know who this 'higher authority' he claims to have referred this to is, as that alone makes me think an indef block is in order. --InShaneee 19:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The 'higher authority' was Cowman109 [15] [16]. I see that it was my choice of wording 'higher authority' means probably god to the westerners, whereas to us it is exactly as it suggests indicating someone senior. No offense was meant to anyone.Kerr avon 23:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was more concerned you meant some legal body. I have a feeling if you had appealed to God I wouldn't have much say in the matter. No harm done. --InShaneee 13:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational Response Squad

I closed this deletion debate early after massive sockpuppetry. Of the 80-odd contributions it received in the 36 hours it was on AfD there were about eight good-faith contributions.

In particular there were a number of accounts with nonzero edit histories that just happened to crop up in this massively sockpuppeted vote. I am wondering whether this organisation has actively infiltrated Wikipedia with sleeper accounts, or whether this is coincidence; and also what other action if any we should take. (Of course some of the accounts listed below may be good-faith users who just happened on the discussion). The Land 20:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Tsharpfilm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Infidelaholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Plynn9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LacunaSerenity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Livecontra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Solar II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dumpydooby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PandaKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moloth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hierophantasmagoria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cbenard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• I don't know anything about this (though I agree it looks incredibly fishy), but you may want to brace yourself for a possible sock-o-rama DRV, since you closed an AfD in which you also !voted. --Aaron 00:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Aye, probably should have taken it here for someone else to nix, rather than doing so yourself. In any case, this is indeed incredibly fishy. Especially if it continues to a DRv, I'd take it to the sock board or to CU (code D). I personally tend away from assuming good faith in this case purely because of the nature of the "votes" made. [17], [18], [19], etc., all sound like so many cases of this sort that I've seen before. In this case, with one outright admitting that they're from the organization, it's even worse. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• The article was about a radio show, so it's easy for them to tell people to go and !vote in a discussion. The ones that already had wikipedia accounts (active or not) would've been more inclined to go and comment in the first place. Thinking that a small group of people has been actively making sleeper accounts for no apparent reason (except to vote when an article gets tagged for deletion, 10 days after the fact) seems really unlikely. - Bobet 10:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

On reflection you're probably right. The Land 15:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Abusing Nlu's administrative right

User:Nlu have abused his or her administrator's right when editing the Korean histories.

1. Especially, the editing of Wiman Joseon by hairwizard91 is more confident and reasonble because it includes more references. But Nlu have reverted the article of Wiman Joseon to the previous one, which has NO reference, and then you added the category of Category:Articles lacking sources. His or her editing of the articles about Korean histories were not fair and violate the POV.
   
2. For Korean History in Manchuria, hairwizard91 added the category Category:History of Manchuria and Category:Korea , but Nlu reverted it again. I think that Korean History in Manchuria is related to Category:History of Manchuria and Category:Korea. He considers that Korean History in Manchuria is not Korean history and History of Manchuria.
   
3. For Baedal, it is myth nation of Korean history. So, hairwizard91 added the category of Category:Korean mythology. But, Nlu removed the category of Korean mythology.
   
4. For Hwanguk. Hwanguk is also mythical nation. So, Hairwizard91 added Category:Korean mythology to Hwanguk. But Nlu revert it without even reading the article.
   
5. For Goguryeo, his editing does not follow the rule of POV. As everyone already knows it, Goguryeo is still controversal nation that is Korean or China. But, he added the following sentencen. The term 'Goguryeo' is the revised term based on the changes in the law of Romanizing Korean language,Hangul, in 2000. The Chinese pronounciation of the word 'Goguryeo' is 'Gao Gouli'. But since most people in the world recognize the Goguryeo kingdom by the name 'Koguryo,' the old way of Romanizing Goguryeo, the Chinese utilized, for their benefit, the Korean pronounciation 'Koguryo' in order to register Goguryeo tomb sites as Chinese in 2004 and to validate their assertion that Goguryeo kingdom is part of Chinese history, not Korean.This sentence is too subjective, and should not be used if following the rule POV. Because hairwizard91 removed his sentence, the artifle of goguryeo is semi-protected. It is not the right way of an administrator.
   
6. For Dongyi, Hairwizard91 added the historical Chinese records with correct citations. But, Nlu blindly remmoved the article with correct citation.
   
7. For Nangnang, there are actually two things; one is Nangnang nation, and the other is Lelang Commandery. Hairwizard91 added two redirections for Nangnang, but Nlu modified the redirection only to Lelang Commandery, which is established by ancient China. Nangnang nation was established by Korean. He may not want to progress the article about Korean history.
   
8. For Jin (Korean history), I dont understand the article is semi-protected. Nlu have justed blindly semi-protected the article. The sentence added by 67.38.248.16 is followed the history book of Joseon Sango Sa.

As my examination of Nlu editing, he or she removed and reverted the article if the new sentence or content is the Korean history that is not taught in China. He did not follow the rule of POV...

Nlu have prevented the article of Korean history from progressing further... Nlu do not edit the article with POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.41.164 (talk • contribs)

This user has no edits outside of Nlu's user talk and WP:ANI. Something smells like old socks. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont have any account now. And my IP is dynamically assigned.--68.252.41.164 01:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See #Hairwizard91 and #User User:Nlu abused his administration above. To the anonymous user: this is not the Wikipedia complaints department; if you have a dispute with another user then please engage in the dispute resolution process, unless you have concerns which specifically relate to either:

• actions requiring administrative attention;
• administrative actions;

in which case I suggest you rework your message to address only these concerns. Please do not simply repeat the message. --bainer (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Isnt it possible to write about the abuse of an administrator in this site ? It is not long since I have used wiki. (I made my account now) --Goldwing999 02:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have concerns relating specifically to use of the administrative tools (deleting pages, protecting pages etc), then yes you can mention them here. However if your dispute merely relates to editing, then you need to use the dispute resolution process. --bainer (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're blatantly violating WP:SOCK. Sit out your block, or face longer blocks. --Nlu (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I didnt know the rule. Sorry but I made my new account because Thebainer requested it. Before he or she requested it, I did not make any account.

Also, I am not sure why I cannot make new ID. The previous ID is blocked permanently. Is it possible to make new ID when the previous is blocked permanently?

Moreover, this is talking about POV. Dont make vague the POV because of SOCK

Please re-read WP:POV. Wikipedia is a cooperative project, not a project where someone who is the loudest or the most prolific "wins." You've been doing nothing but imposing what your own views are on since you've come on. You've obviously got good things to contribute to the project, but you need to be able to edit in a cooperative manner.

As to your inability to create a new user ID -- why will you need to? The block on Hairwizard91 (talk · contribs) is only for 24 hours, and once 24 hours have elapsed, you can again edit. Again, creating new IDs for the purpose of evading blocks is a violation of WP:SOCK. For now, the inability to create a new ID stems from the block on Hairwizard91 (precisely to prevent this type of misuse). If you want to have a "clean start," wait for the block to expire, and then follow the procedure at WP:CHU. --Nlu (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nlu did revert the article even when it is additional explanation and nobody has a opposite opinion. If the added content is additional explanation and there is no controversal, it should be kept until someone has the opposite opinion.

You said the cooperation. But, anybody even you did not discuss about the content. They were only reverting the article. Many chinese usually reverted the articles when it is not equal to what they have learned. There have been no discussion. As you know there are more larger chinese than korean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.20.209 (talk • contribs)

Don't try to bring ethnicity into this. Your actions are no more appropriate by a person of any other ethnicity. --Nlu (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Racially stereotyping of editors when accusing them of POV "abuse" is not going to help your cause in the slightest. Daniel.Bryant 04:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This user has since resorted to Wiki-stalking me while evading the block -- perhaps validly adding {{sources}} tags on articles I started, but then adding spurrious {{fact}} tags on facts in fact established by the sources even after sources were added. Assistance in countering the stalking would be greatly appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The user has now taken it to vandalize Chinese history articles, whether I had been significantly involved or not, to remove images. Again, help in combatting him/her would be greatly appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As it turns out, I've been forced to block the following ranges for three hours each:

• 68.249.220.x
• 68.75.x.x
• 68.76.x.x
• 68.77.x.x

All of these are AT&T dialup addresses, apparently. Obviously, I'd rather not block this many ranges, but there appeared to be no other way of stopping this user. Additional ideas would be appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not against NLU but you want cooperation and then ban the user, thats not really in the spirit of cooperating, you also sprotect an article without discussing it with the person you were keeping from the article, also not very in favor of discussion. I believe Wikipedia is a colaborative project, as such reverting an article without explanation on talk or even in the edit summary isnt really working in that spirit. Also since one article was sprotected, this is a matter for AN/I and not just mediation since it then involves admin tools, including the wide spread ban above to a anon user, who when asked to, made an account to discuss this issue here.

I guess the main question is, are they mythical nations, if so why remove the cat, if not then is there any proof? --NuclearZer0 13:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to reason with the user (see, in particular, the discussion on User talk:Nlu) after the user initially indicated that he/she was willing to abide by WP:SOCK. However, the user then resumed his/her disruptive behavior by in fact refusing to sit out the block, and further engaging in WP:POINT-violative behavior.

The reason why I reverted the user's edits was because he/she made so many, there is no way to go back and pick out the one or two good edits and let them stand. The user is effectively going, "I may have made a bundle of bad edits, but let my 1% of good edits stand!" Well, this is similar to the vandals who put in sneaky vandalism; there is no good way to distinguish the good with the bad. --Nlu (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Need help with some trolling

172.130.210.78 (talk · contribs) was blocked by Nishkid64 earlier today, but now the anon has returned as 172.130.181.150 (talk · contribs), whose first contribution was this edit, and the rest are a mix of trolling and insults. Here for example, he/she said the following:

BertilVidet, if you continue with this kind of (mis-) demenour, you will hear from your university where you are registered as a master's student. And, trust me, this is a promise.

Can someone please block this guy? He's probably the same person who caused Bertilvidet's userpage to be semi-protected. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

...and he's back as 172.163.2.61 (talk · contribs). —Khoikhoi 02:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, he's returned again as 172.128.27.44 (talk · contribs). —Khoikhoi 02:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Digimorph and spam

Someone may want to have a look at Digimorph (talk • contribs). I'm pretty sure his activity constitutes outright spam, but would rather have someone more experienced consider his contributions and possibly roll back his edits. Thanks. -- mattb @ 2006-10-16T01:27Z

Yes, that's definately spam. He's advertising his website (digimorph.org) through sections in various articles. —Khoikhoi 01:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also just realized his last edit was on March 22... —Khoikhoi 01:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing copyvios from www.marvunapp.com

Someone for marvunapp.com has been emailing WP:OTRS regarding copyvios from their web site. This is the third complaint we've received, this time regarding Captain Albion and Captain Airstrip-One. The pattern is that someone is paraphrasing using identical sentence and paragraph structure with only slightly different word choice. I'm sure there are more of these. Would someone like to get to the bottom of this and explain the facts of life to the perp? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Well, the source of the copyright infringement is User:Originalsinner, who created the Captain Airstrip-One article and expanded Captain Albion from a stub. Some of the text is identical to the original site, but it is paraphrased rather heavily. Originalsinner has been talked to about copyright in the past, and these are not recent infringements. There are probably more problems, but Originalsinner has thousands of edits, mostly minor without edit summaries. Someone take it from here? Mangojuice^talk 04:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Originalsinner about this, but from his contribution history, his track record of responding to comments has been very bad. When he went on editing without responding, I blocked him. I'm not going to be on WP all the time, so if anyone else comes across this, feel free to unblock if you can get a dialogue going, and are sure he understands about copyvios. Mangojuice^talk 20:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's worse that we thought:

> >
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/khlogstr.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KhL%CE%98G
> >
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrgo
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/orrgopre.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fangu
> > and this one isn't just the image but the text too
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix2/fangunightmare.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraa_the_Unhuman
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/kraaunhu.htm
> > and in the above case it seems clear to me Originalsinner has simply
> > abbreviated and slightly re-ordered the text from the Appendix page
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognescenti
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/cognoscentisd.htm
> >
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/groottta.htm (scroll down the page
> > for the image in question)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groot
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla-Man (image of the Ken Hale
> > Gorilla Man)
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/gorillam.htm (scroll down to see the
> > same image)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glob_%28comics%29
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix2/globtimmshulk.htm (again, scroll
> > down for the image)
> >
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/manphibi.htm
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manphibian
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dino_Manelli
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/manellidino.htm (scroll right down)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Wilson
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/wilsondu.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Sam_Sawyer
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/sawyersam.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Ralston
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/ralstonrobert.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinky_Pinkerton
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/pinkertonpercival.htm (again,
> > scroll down to see the same image)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abominable_Snowman_%28comics%29
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/abominab.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Jones_%28comics%29
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/jonesfred.htm (scroll down - the
> > irony here is he's copied the image of the wrong character, as this
> > isn't Fred Jones)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Larkin
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/larkinjerry.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Koenig
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/koenigeric.htm (scroll down again)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_Juniper
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/juniperjunior.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodshed_%28comics%29
> > comes from
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/bldshd.htm (scroll down)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestor_%28comics%29
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/avatrz.htm#ance
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundry_%28comics%29
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/avatrz.htm#foun
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lich_%28comics%29
> > same Appendix page listed above
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfist
> > Ditto
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Slasher
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/shadslsr.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kogar.gif
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/kogar.htm
> >
> > Then there's the text from the top of this page
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Originalsinner_Additions_F
> > comes from the various pages linked to here
> > http://www.marvunapp.com/master/mastguid.htm#Master
> >
> > He's also copying the bibliographies from marvunapp.com to Wikipedia
> >
> > And its not just the Appendix he likes to purloin things from. Try out
> > the Gorgolla image here
> > http://www.geocities.com/madscie/madscientist/atlasmonsters/gorgolla.jpg
> > which is part of this site
> > http://www.geocities.com/madscie/madscientist/marvel.html
> > and compare it to the one posted here by Originalsinner
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgolla
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gabejones-ww2.jpg
> > comes from
> > http://home.gate.net/~images/bios/jones.htm
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:It-comics.jpg
> > http://www.marvel.com/universe/It%2C_The_Living_Colossus

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully support UninvitedCompany's indefinite block. Ral315 (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, don't bother blocking this IP since it belongs to a public library and I don't intend to sock puppet this thing. I needed a to give my view etc and so forth.

1) Last I checked nearly every comic book image on this site is a copyright violation. Also last time I checked, Jeff Christiansen (founder of marvunapp) doesn't own the images, Marvel does. Hence, why I said that they were from Marvel. Marvel = owner of pictures, not Jeff. Also I put the pictures up in good faith. I didn't realise it was gonna coz such a fuss. So listen up. Khlog - it was summarized somewhere else actually and extended it. It's not my fault that Khlog also has a page on the Appendix. I only got his bibliography using a mixture of the appendix and the chronology project. Ditto with Orrgo. Fangu, yes but I was changing that one back. It was to prove a point that he wasn't such a menial character. Kraa the Unhuman I did not abbreviate or slightly reorder. I extended it since that how he was summarized. As for the have the master guide on it. I was using it as storage as I was just bloody reading it. Correction, I used the bibliographies from marvunapp, marvel, the handbooks and the chronology project. How is this a copyvio? Good God are you not seeing the same site as I am. Everything is a violation. The summaries of episodes, the list of characters, pictures from the WWE which are property of the WWE. EVERYTHING! And like I said I didn't "purloin" anything from any other site without stated that the image was in fact owned by Marvel. Under fair use Marvel Comics are the owner, not the fansites I "purloined" them from. And I stated when uploading them that they were indeed from Marvel. But how about looking at the comic project properly, and you'll notice basically every image is taken from another site.

Having looked through a few of these examples, I can say that the issue is really fair use of images, not misuse of copyrighted text. All those images are appropriately marked as fair use: the question is whether or not Wikipedia is willing to defend that fair use now that someone is complaining. I wouldn't have made the indefinite block myself, but if it helps to appease Marvel while we clean this up, I think it's okay... and the Fangu case shows that Originalsinner is still violating copyright, it's not just something that happened 9 months ago. I myself think we have pushed fair use a little too far here. I think it's reasonable to include frames of comics in order to illustrate characters we write about... but using the same images as the Marvel Universe appendix over and over is not okay: there's creativity in the choice of which image we use, which we are also copying, and I don't see any fair use justification for that. Also, there's the issue of who actually owns the scan of the image, but I'm not sure if that matters. And this is Marvel we're talking about: the only thing they actually own are their copyrights -- we have to be careful dealing with them. Mangojuice^talk 12:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Are Marvel complaining, or just the person who initially scanned the images and placed them on the web? Any copyright violations of text from the www.marvunapp.com site should obviously be removed. The images, I'm a little less clear on. The site itself is, as far as I can see, a fansite. It's not affiliated with Marvel, and seems to claim no copyright on anything, although the copyright notice displayed there is badly worded. I guess I can see the problem with using the same images over and over, but I think it may be best to get a proper opinion on this. Steve block Talk 12:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just adding though, that we have written some guidance on the fair use of images sourced from comics, and we do guide that people should list the web-site they source the image from when they upload it, if they haven't scanned it themselves. Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright. Steve block Talk 12:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not the fair use images from Marvel. As pointed out, these are fair use and I don't think they pose a problem. The problem is the text. In at least some of the cases that I've investigated carefully, there has been a problem with paraphrased text that constitutes a copyvio. The fact that it is paraphrased makes it hard to find, because a google search comes up empty. But the sentence and paragraph structure is the same with only slight changes in word choice, in the cases I've seen, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that these have been copyvios. As I see it, that establishes the credibility of the complaints from marvunapp.com, and since Originalsinner has done nothing whatsoever except mutter obscenities in response to concerns, it is up to us to clean up the mess.

And that's time consuming because the only way to do it is go through each and every article marvunapp.com has complained about and try to look for parallel text in Originalsinner's contributions to it. In some cases we might conclude that there is enough departure from the original marvunapp.com text that there isn't a copyvio. In other cases we will have to decide whether to remove the affected text or revert to the pre-Originalsinner version, and either way there is still the potential problem of copyvios in the history.

I do want to make the point that marvunapp.com has already gone to considerable trouble to identify and communicate the cases they're aware of. While I realize that there may well be some false positives in their list, it really isn't their job to police our articles once they've established a pattern of copyvios.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I was the person who brought up the copyright violations and image pilfering, I hope no one minds if I chip in here.

Regarding the examples of plagiarism, I am happy that Wikipedia as a site deals with them and appreciate that its difficult to police the users. Its your choice to decide to do what you want with regards to blocking or not blocking Original Sinner; from where I stand though, I asked Wiki moderators to tell him to not take from the Appendix on multiple occasions, I have no reason to doubt this was indeed done, and he has persisted doing so. I'd rather not waste my time or anyone else's with having to constantly police his articles and request they be removed when and if he copies again, BUT I will do so if I have to.

Regarding Original Sinner's older edits. I don't expect any of you to have to go back through them. I accept there may well be more plagiarised material there, but I don't hold that against Wikipedia. I don't actively hunt through Wikipedia looking for plagiarism, but I do browse the site, and I know the Appendix style well enough to spot most cases of copying. If there's other stuff Original Sinner has posted in the past, leave it there for the moment, and I will find it sooner or later, and at that point flag it up for checking and removal.

On the images: as I've said EVERY time I have brought up images being taken from the Appendix, I accept that we don't own the copyright, Marvel does. However, while I generally don't mind the odd image being taken from another site, its the sheer extent of the copying from the Appendix which gets me. We don't maintain that site just so other sites (or their contributors) lazier than ours can plunder us willy nilly because they can't be bothered to do the work themselves. Its just plain incredibly rude, and I'd hope Wikipedia would be better than that. I'm sure Original Sinner knew he was being out of order taking so many images, based on his claiming the source was Marvel.com rather than the Appendix - "And I stated when uploading them that they were indeed from Marvel" - well, no he didn't because Marvel.com is a specific site, and while owned by them, is not the same as Marvel the comics company. That was, to me, a clear case of obfuscating where he got the images from, and I can think of only one reason to do that; he knew we'd not be happy about it. Can I force you to remove them under threat of legal action? Tricky, and I wouldn't want to go down that path even if I was certain I could (but fair use can fall down dependent on volume taken from another source, so I might have a case). But can I ask, as a simple case of good manners, for those images to be removed? Yes, and I am asking. If people want to use images from our site, then they can ask, and we usually give permission, so long as we get credited and it isn't a wholesale taking of every image they can lay their hands on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.174.51 (talk • contribs)

Ongoing personal attacks and verbal abuse from User:Ernham

User Ernham is posting a personal attack on Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence [20]. This is only the latest of many personal attacks, attacks for which he was blocked a few days ago. For some reason, he seems unable or unwilling to understand. Is there anyone who can let him know what a personal atack is or isn't? This last post is bodering on the slanderous. Thanks in advance!--Ramdrake 03:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn - after re-reading the purpose of this page, I see that I'm not on the right page. Sorry for the inconvenience.--Ramdrake 22:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Fmaack and User:69.196.150.118

I've just blocked this IP address as it has been clearly carrying on the edits of User:Fmaack. His edit pattern involves the article on Andrew Nellis (also Andrew Bruce Nellis) and their DRV debates. I blocked Fmaack for a week for trolling after he did this, which itself didn't occur in a vacuum: Fmaack had previously been blocked for personal attacks. Fmaack got pissed off at this and ended up leaving an unblock message that got him blocked indefinitely. While I don't disagree with that decision, what I stand by for sure was my 1-week block for trolling, which was being evaded via that IP address. Still, I would appreciate review from others: should this user really be blocked indefinitely? Can they be turned into a positive contributor eventually? Mangojuice^talk 05:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease

Dear Jimbo Wales,

I'd like to request a comment from you concerning THC's role as a potential treatment for Alzheimer's disease. I think this discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alzheimer%27s_disease#THC) could provide interesting insight into how Wikipedia really functions and could be used for future references. If you consider the discussion worth commenting, I'd appreciate it if you would have time to read through the entire thread about the subject and give an opinion about what is about to happen there.

Sincerely,

--Jnx 10:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted this on Jimbo Wales user talk page but apparently that was not ok so now I post it here. I'd like to have an honest opinion about this dispute. Jimbo Wales, if you see this please consider giving an opinion.

--Jnx 12:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're already getting plenty of discussion about the subject, why are you posting it here? And why would Jimbo Wales be an expert about Alzheimer's disease anyway? - Bobet 13:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I wan't someone with neutral point of view to give an opinion about this subject. You don't need to be an expert about Alzheimer's to give an opinion about this subject. If you read the discussion, you might understand what I mean. I am not after discussion, I am after conclusion. In my opinion the discussion about this subject has not reached conclusion yet.

I might be wrong on this subject, but I'd just like an opinion from someone I know I can trust to be objective. --Jnx 13:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like advertising to me. --InShaneee 13:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean advertising THC? That is not my point. As I said, I might be wrong. I am sorry if turning to Jimbo Wales seems strange to some of you, but people who I am having this debate with turned to the person responsible for the medicine Wikiproject who I consider pretty highly respected person too as far as Wikipedia persons go. I'd like an opinion from someone who doesn't see THC as nothing but a substance. In my opinion the last sentence in the comment by JFW in the discussion thread showed that his view on this is biased. --Jnx 13:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean advertising the study. And this shouldn't be turning into 'who can appeal to the highest power'. The Medicine Wikiproject has a lot of knowledge about this topic. Jimbo doesn't. --InShaneee 14:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has a lot of knowledge about being objective. I really don't understand your point about advertising a study? Everything in science is based on scientific studies, which are used as sources on Wikipedia articles. Please read the discussion thread, this case needs someone who is objective (and possibly not from the medicine Wikiproject) to take a stance. My point is not to turn this into 'who can appeal to the highest power', I'd just like to find someone who really knows how to be objective. --Jnx 14:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that everyone who disagrees with you isn't objective is the best way to ferret out the real bias. You've brought it up, and it's been roundly shot down. The time to let it go and stop making absurd claims about an FDA conspiricy is now. --InShaneee 14:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been roundly shot down. If you read the thread, there are people who have supported my stance too, and there are exactly two people who shot it down in addition JFW who commented on it yesterday. Please take a look at the arguments of the people who are shooting it down.

I do realize that I went overboard with my theories about hiding this fact but I got angry when I tried to make a discussion and the arguments from the people whose opinions differed from mine were absurd. You are right about letting go though. Maybe it's better to concentrate on something else now. I just thought I saw something here that wasn't what Wikipedia is about. You can remove the THC study from the article as far as I am concerned. --Jnx 15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

These sorts of disputes are common, you just need to work through them. Providing evidence in the form of major publications endorsing the study may help more than rallying supporters. Your best supporter is the truth. HighInBC 16:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Review

Could an independent admin review my declining of an unblock request at User talk:68.189.255.6 please? Thanks. Mangojuice^talk 13:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WhisperToMe's block was indefinite, but recommended to be at least three days... Personally that outburst of incivil language is reason enough to keep the ban in place for the time being. I'd remake the block with a definite timespan (say a week). Thanks/wangi 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Unbelieveable. Well, they cant even behave when applying for an unblock then they most definitely arent going to pull their head in afterwards. In the first few lines of the talk page he uses the words Moron, Clown & Retard. I dont know why WhisperToMe used the block the they did as its bound to (and has) cause confusion. As such, I have now reblocked for 2 months with the request that before unblocking an admin just pop a note through to myself or Mangojuice. Thanks Glen 13:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the personal-attack ridden rant from his talk page... we shouldn't be providing people with free webhosting for that kind of garbage. --W.marsh 13:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. User has now been notified Glen 13:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please put a block on 204.50.64.129

This IP has been warned that any further external link spamming will result in a block, and it was disregarded recently. I would list a the diffs, but it pretty much involves adding spam links to leasing, Hyundai Capital, and Penske Corporation. The links go to a "get out of your car lease spam site. Warning is on User talk page. Thanks! Puchscooter 14:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h. --Kbdank71 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, my user name is People Powered. Out of the blue on Saturday night Freakofnurture stole my user name, and blocked me from editing on the suspicion that I was another person, Andrew Sylvia. Rather than following any procedure, he decided to be policeman, judge, jury and executioner. Several other editors have commented that this seems to be unjust[21],[22] and apparently much of my work on the 2006 New Hampshire Elections has been deleted (you can see for yourself just at looking at Template:2006NHElection, on Friday all of those articles were blue, after I put in hundreds of edits into all of them. Now, most of them have been deleted, apparently for no reason. Please advise me on what to do now. Regardless of what happens, I think this is a perfect example that there needs to be some mechanism to keep administrators such as Freak of Nurture accountable for their actions. Right now, there appears that there is no accountability for his actions, and I'm worried for the project if there are other users that act in a way like this, let alone several. -- People Powered.

You weren't blocked on the suspicion of being Andrew Sylvia, you were blocked on the suspicion of being a sockpuppet of banned user Karmafist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Furthermore, you weren't just blocked by Freakofnurture, but also by Centrx. The block is currently under review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#People Powered block review. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, just FYI, Andrew is Karmafist. – Chacor 15:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

But he wasn't blocked for being the person, he was blocked for being a sock of a banned wikipedian, and the wikipedian is Karmafist. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, so i'll just come back as me. It's not like you could get rid of me anyway, and as long as the injustice here continues, i'll be around in one form or another, looking over your shoulders...

Weird

User:Zidcosd (Talk | contribs) is removing speedy delete banners from articles, with no reason. That's all he's doing. No editing, no particular pattern to the articles he doesn't want deleted. Can someone make him stop? The Crying Orc 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

He appears to be adding them now, and legitimately. --InShaneee 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Aniston picture

A user, in good faith, uploaded Image:Jennifer Aniston.jpg. The source for this particular image, flickr, claims that this image is licensed under the Creative Commons license. However, the uploader on flickr (not the person who uploaded the image to Wikipedia) has a number of other images which he similarly claims are licensed under CC while being blatantly obviously untrue. I believe this image also was not licensed under these terms. The person who uploaded the image to the Wikipedia claims rightly that I need to provide some evidence that the image was not released under the CC. Aside from the flickr page itself, I can't find this evidence. Can someone help me out? --Yamla 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not work that way. It is the burdern of the uploader to prove unambiguously that the license is correct and compatible with Wikipedia's goals. --69.157.1.45 16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

He's right. It's our job to avoid liability, so they have to show proof. --InShaneee 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree this image can be kept. I did a search through the public domain commercial usable images. Wikipedia states if an image is found there it can be relesed. Until that image is removed from Creative Commons it is allowed to be used on Wikipedia or a citation is needed proving that that specific image is not open source. My proof is that it was found on Creative Commons commercial section: http://search.creativecommons.org/?q=Jennifer+Aniston&commercial=on&engine=flickr Valoem ^talk 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My evidence, by the way, is that the flickr uploader also uploaded other pictures such as DVD covers that are blatantly obviously not licensed under the CC. And this image is very similar to standard Friends promotional images (albeit cropped) which have never been released by NBC under the CC license. The creative commons search page simply takes as accurate the license that is attached on the flickr page. If the uploader uses the wrong license, as seems to be the case here, the image will still show up. --Yamla 17:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)However, we've got clear proof that the licence is most likely faulty. It should become a common sense matter that we can't just leave it there. --InShaneee 17:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• If it's called into question, we err on the side of caution and delete images that are legally iffy. In cases like these, it's fair to delete. --Improv 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweetest Day

User:Miracleimpulse is engaging in a series of disruptive edits to the Sweetest Day article, primarily adding tags to the article where there is no consensus for this. Numerous editors have reverted him, but he seems to feel that the fact that the current version of the article does not conform to his point of view is reason enough for him add disputed, hoax, advertising, and other tags or tack on his version of the article. He's already been blocked for this sort of thing once. He also is continuing to insinuate in his edit comments that everyone who reverts him is involved in "industry spinning". WP:AGF but based on his past history with this article (which all of his edits involve) and the proximity of the "holiday", it's a safe bet he's only going to get more disruptive in the coming week.--Isotope23 17:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for disruption. He's clearly got an agenda to push, and considering his past attempts to replace the entire article with one of his own design, I doubt he'll stop any time soon. I've also put the previously userfied page he's using to stage these attacks up for MfD. --InShaneee 17:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... this whole thing is getting really tiresome.--Isotope23 18:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing attacks against Chinese dynastic and China related articles

One or more users dancing around IPs have been conducting a series of vandalism against Chinese dynastic articles, such as Han Dynasty, History of China, Qin Shi Huang and Jet Li. I've already blocked two of them User:65.43.196.76 and User:69.219.81.7, but there are more. Most recently User:69.220.162.121. I don't have a ton of time to keep pursuing this and I'd like some help. --Durin 18:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:75.35.132.212 has been doing the same things, I might add...it turns out that his vandalisms are attempts to push his POV. _dk 00:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect they may be related to this section above. _dk 00:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User 137.94.*.*

I've been reverting a series of edits (adding an apparently popular but not notable man to the list of notable professors) to Royal Military College of Canada. (Some sample diffs are [23] and [24]; it's been reverted six times so far.) The edits all seem to be from what seems a single user. Trouble is, each of the edits is coming in from a different IP address. All of the addresses are in the 137.94.*.* block, which an IP lookup shows is registered to RMC. Not sure what to do in this case, as there isn't a single user account, or even IP, to request a block on. Eron 18:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

semi-protected. Maybe the editor can make a case for some of his changes on the talk page in the mean time. Thatcher131 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Eron 18:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Julieismywife, etc. Spam Campaign

There has been a weeks-long campaign to inject promotional material from Linda Christas International Schools into dozens of existing articles across WP (+ creation of new single purpose articles), using a large number of sockpuppets, including attempts to get around deletions. Linda Christas is currently protected from being re-created, although at last check, Linda Christas International School was still up. These editors have spammed dozens of articles, and it's increasingly difficult to keep up with them and their new sock puppets. Currently deleting AFD tags as well. Certain articles that are being targetting multiple times daily, including Sue Grafton, Pat Boone, Margaret Spellings, Efrem Zimbalist, and Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. need to be protected. Linda Christas International School and Ronald F. Bernard need to be deleted (again!) and protected from recreation. Can I get an admin's help on this?

Sockpuppetts/Suspected Sockpuppets include: user:Julieismywife, user:71.143.16.237, user:Buddydebrill, user:Manysummers, user:71.143.14.118, user:71.143.4.0, user:71.142.228.226, user:Oppieangel2000. --Francisx 18:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrator input requested, re: User:Cooldudex234

This user created an article called "Non-Notable" which I speedily deleted as an attack page against WP admins. The user has responded with a personal attack on my talk page ([25]), and a manifesto of sorts on his user page. I'd appreciate another admin looking into this—I don't like to be the only point of contact in these kind of disputes. Thanks! -- Merope ^Talk 19:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've indef blocked him; if he indicates that he wants to make productive contributions then I am happy to unblock him. However we can't have troll-only accounts. The Land 19:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced his manifesto with the indefblockeduser template, as well. --InShaneee 19:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I assumed that my deleting his page and blocking him would just piss him off further. Cheers. -- Merope ^Talk 19:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Feline1 and breachs of WP:Civil

This has been blocked on the 9/10/06 for breachs of WP:POINT see User_talk:Feline1#Blocked and in the discussion here he has already issued the following statements

• Irish Nationalist trolls seems to outweigh leyalist pedants
• Spoke about the Flag of Ireland is a very negivate tone
• some proddy git

(Gnevin 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

With respect Gnevin, I'd suggest you may have been a little over-sensitive to this particular 'incident'. Being from Northern Ireland, I found feline1's comment to actually be slightly humourous. You were right to correct him/her with regard to your userpage (on which I saw one "emblem" which I don't regard, in its context, to be 'Irish nationalist' at all). His "some proddy git", I would have thought, would be more deserving of a polite reminder of WP:CIVIL. Unless s/he makes another, similar remark, I would suggest that it be forgotten. I honestly don't think they meant to cause any real offence with that initial remark.. at least, it was more of the style "a pox on both your houses". Just my thoughts on the matter - I've seen much worse. --Mal 05:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope this[26] is not typical of User:Feline1. I found this remark particularly offensive, and it was directed at me. User:Feline1 cannot know which way I think, or what my allegiances are in any matter. My sole purpose in my edit was to have more balance on that particular page. This sort of behaviour really turns editors away from editing, and is veiled intimidation. MelForbes 14:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

John Doolittle and John M. Poswall

(reposted from WP:RFC/UN)

I believe this user's name is an attempt to impersonate John Doolittle given that that's the only topic this person seems to edit about. I also believe that this user is John M. Poswall, an attorney who has just started a major media campaign against John Doolittle. (user shows up and posts a copy of a document, then latter a new article show up in the Sacramento Bee claiming John M. Poswall made a Freedom of Information request to get the document[27])

I expect that this will continue. The username was blocked as inappropriate, but I somehow doubt this will go away. Poswall is a fairly wealthy attorney and cares enough about this to buy 30 ad spots. Other then strictly enforcing WP:V and WP:NPOV I don't know what else I can do to... dissuade... this kind of POV warrior. I wouldn't be surprised if Jimbo gets a call and WP:OFFICE is invoked at some point. Any advise would be appreciated. ---J.S (t|c) 20:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If something real is happening that requires WMF to do something, please let us know. If they are just duking it out over content, whatever.--Brad Patrick 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Around 85% of that article is knocking copy. I removed it. Even though there were sources, those sections of the article which were not critical were so anodyne as to leave the indelible impression that this individual is venal and corrupt. Yes, I think it warrants some strong words form the foundation on Talk. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Guy 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the intervention in that regard Guy. Never knew what to do about it. ---J.S (t|c) 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And it's all back. I agree with Guy's comment above - the article definitely has an extremely negative slant as it stands. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For further discussion on issues such as whether the article (as revised) violates rules against soapboxing and copyviol, please see Talk:John Doolittle#Criticism (controversies) section. I think it's helpful to have such discussion in one place, and the article's talk/discussion page probably is an easier place for editors to see why changes have been made to the article. John Broughton | Talk 13:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Very true John. This whole section has sorta deviated from the origional point anyway. I think "Dolittl" has given up anyway... well, I hope so atleast. ---J.S (t|c) 16:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Owens Community College page being used as a "vandalise at will" test case

The page on Owens Community College has apparently been chosen as a test case, by one or more classes at this school, of how unreliable wikis are. A few nights ago I reverted several particularly nasty vandals at this page, and then protected it when it became clear to me that it was being targeted for deliberate insertion of misinformation by more than one person. [28] [29] [30]

I'm going to unprotect it now, since a few days have gone by and there's at least one comment on the talk page suggesting a potentially accurate edit. Can someone else please put this on their watchlist, and keep an eye out? I find it particularly amusing that they are angry [31] when our anti-vandal measures are successful at stopping them in their efforts to prove us "unreliable." Antandrus (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Password reminder from Wikipedia

I am not sure about which is the right page for reporting this. I have been receiving roughly one or two Password reminders a day for months. I am not especially concerned since the messages are short and easily identifiable. I do not want to classify them as spam, because I may need the service if I forget my password. Strangely I don't get these messages in other wikis I am registered with. What is the purpose of these bogus requests? Is there something that I can do? The addresses causing the messages are:

• User:212.22.161.3 Today 00:34
• User:222.253.77.8 Today 00:09
• User:195.24.222.139 16/10/06 19:47
• User:200.201.10.41 16/10/06 00:28
• User:200.201.10.41 16/10/06 00:25
• User:80.227.0.153 14/10/06 21:41
• User:201.17.155.225 13/10/06 16:50
• User:203.172.168.242 13/10/06 04:26
• User:203.172.168.242 13/10/06 04:08
• User:201.2.73.9 11/10/06 23:05
• User:198.54.202.254 11/10/06 22:49
• User:198.54.202.254 11/10/06 21:46
• You get the picture...

--Error 23:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... other then the admins banning those IP address there isn't much to do about it. However, it looks like it's different people who were attracted to your user name or one person with a proxy. The fact that it's one or two a day suggests it's the former. It might be that "User:Error" is defaulted to in some weird circumstances. You could setup a filter to throw them into a special folder and simply ignore them. *shrug* ---J.S (t|c) 23:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly why usernames such as Error are now discouraged. I see you've been around for a long time. You may want to consider getting your account moved to a new name. Wikipedia:Username has some hints for you. HTH, Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

JS, even if they are blocked here, it doesn't prevent them from requesting passwords due to a bug in the mediawiki software. So yes, until that's fixed setting up a filter is a good idea. Also remember Error that each new request cancels out the previous so there are only at most two active passwords on an account at one time. pschemp | talk 01:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Elvis Presley article

User:Lochdale is repeatedly deleting whole paragraphs and relevant passages from the Elvis Presley article. See, for instance, [32], [33], [34], [35]. I don't know for what reason he is doing this, but there can be no doubt that his primary aim is to constantly harass me by removing my contributions, wrongly calling them questionable or original research. See also the history of this user from the beginning. In fact, my contributions are well sourced, as everybody can see, as I have used many independent sources, among them mainstream biographies and university studies. The activities of this user are not acceptable. Onefortyone 23:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As soon as User Onefortyone's most recent probabtion (for the same article. An article that he has been banned from several times) was lifted he went right back to editing the Presley article. Once again, the same use of selective quotation and questionable sources have been used to support his original research. Indeed, both his mentor 220 and another editor 221 told him to stop (in no uncertain terms it might be added). This user's entire reason to exist on wiki appears to be to get as much scandal and gossip written about Presley as possible. The materials you quote are either take out of context or are selective. I think your own mentor put it best (and if I can be forgiven for quoting him here) when he said: — Just because something is sourced does not mean that it belongs in the article and Wikipedia is not the place for revelations about Elvis Presley's sex life. Wikipedia is not interested in obscure and rather tenuous factoids or inferences about a dead rock star's sexual relations. Emphasis his, not mine. Lochdale 23:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself, Lochdale. Did you actually read the passages you have deleted? I don't think so. Otherwise you would not have written such things. The majority of the material you have deleted does not deal with "revelations about Elvis's sex life". I hope that some administrators will have a close look at the material you have removed. Onefortyone 23:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of what I removed was relating to Presley's sex life (your favorite topic). I do hope an admin looks at your editing history and sees how it focuses almost exclusively on Presley or on people who may be related to Presley (whom you then try to cross-reference in the main article). [Here]you basically create an aticle and then try and cross-reference into the main Presley article. Or [here] where you have heavilly edited another article all to suggest that Presley was homosexual. You have been banned from this article before because you have an agenda. The section of the "Elvis Cult" was so POV and disjointed that it warranted removal. As I noted, even an admin and your own mentor noted that that section was not relevant to the article. Lochdale 23:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong, Lochdale. You have deleted material concerning the Elvis cult, the FBI files on Elvis, etc., all of which is well sourced. Another user said on the Talk:Elvis Presley page that the paragraph on the "Elvis Cult and its Critics" includes "a lot of great information" but needs some rewording. So other users think that the paragraph should not be removed. By the way, you should also have mentioned what administrator NicholasTurnbull said on August 4, 2006:

Lochdale:, it does ... seem some of the edits (but not all) that you have made are not strictly in line with WP:NPOV, which I hope you will work on satisfying in the future. I might also ask whether you would be willing to enter into a voluntary hiatus from editing the article for a period of time until the dispute has settled a little. Onefortyone 23:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Lochdale, you are part of an Elvis fan group that endeavors to suppress well-sourced information from the article which is not in line with the positive view you have of your favorite star. Onefortyone 23:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not try and deflect from the real issues at hand here which is you pushing your agenda. It appears that anyone and everyone who disagrees with you is part of this "conspiracy" (a "conspiracy that your mentor and an editor have told you to drop). It's a favourite and rather unpleasant tactic you routinely employ. The article is choc full of negative comments about Presley including his heavy drug abuse so don't try and suggest that the article is a puff-piece without your edits. Do remember, this is an entertainer we are discussing. Not a politician or a religious figure. Lochdale 23:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I noted that I would be happy to discuss this in the discussion section and via the sandbox. Intrestingly, adminstrator Turnbull never banned me from the article and has been quite clear in his concerns over your edits. I would note that when you were banned (again) from the aticle that there didn't seem to be any edit wars at all concerning the article. Every other wiki contributor managed to edit the article without issue. Lochdale 23:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that you seem to push an agenda, as you are frequently deleting whole paragraphs I have written. These paragraphs are well sourced and include relevant information. I hope that some administrators will have a look at your contribution history. Here is one of your recent contributions to the Elvis talk page which shows your interests: [36]Onefortyone 00:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute rather than something needing admin attention, though I am not an admin, and should be taken to dispute resolution instead. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This has already been through ArbCom. Jkelly 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis sock to block

Please block ArbMan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), which is most likely a sock of community-banned JarlaxleArtemis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). It's being used to repeatedly post deletion messages and change tags. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/JarlaxleArtemis for evidence. —Psychonaut 23:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The account has been blocked by User:The Anome, though apparently for unrelated reasons. —Psychonaut 20:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Admin Jaranda and breach of WP:NPA

Jaranda (talk • contribs) has breached WP:NPA 3 times recently with personal attacks in edit summaries: [37], this contained a personal attack and major obscenities, and [38]. He also reverted the warning for his personal attack and said that calling someone an idiot was not a personal attack. [39] He then blocked the person who gave him the legitimate warning. [40] I do not think this person is fit to be an administrator.--Rebel 2 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

May the record show that this user has been using multiple sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets to attack Jaranda and vandalize his userpage. This user is also now indefinitely blocked. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for trolling Rebel. Enjoy your blocks. Joelito (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you harrass someone the right way, you can always get them to crack. Fully support Jaranda. Grandmasterka 02:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I Support Jaranda. Rebel, please do not harass and please understand that this is a revolutionary project, and history has taught us that all revolutions of this sort tend to succeed. Also, as an aside, I support an 11th commandment: "Thou shalt not harass people who help contribute to progress in thy era". — Deckiller 02:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(Predicts that someone will say the 12th commandment should be not to feed trolls). — Deckiller 02:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is quite pathetic. A vandal/harasser who is certainly not abiding by our policies himself tries to call out Jaranda? Fat chance. Of course, I fully support Jaranda versus the troll. --Cyde Weys 02:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "thine era"? ;-) Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 08:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He should enjoy his long IP block I trust. Mackensen (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaranda has quit wikipedia it seems in light of these events, judging by the userpage and history. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, granted blatant vandals and puppeteers should get booted out so fast it'll make thier head spin, but I don't think it's appropriate for someone to make edit summaries like that. Two wrongs don't make a right, even if the other person is really wrong. Paul Cyr 03:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaranda called the user an idiot and an asshole, and accused them of fucking around with his userpage. Since the user is clearly both an idiot and an asshole and plainly was fucking around with Jaranda's user page, what's the problem? Guy 08:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Compared to the harassment to Cyde and Jaranda, the edit/block summaries were completely harmless. It is nicer not to insult the trolls/vandals, but this is clearly a case where enforcement of WP:NPA would be monumentally stupid. Kusma (討論) 09:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy is meant to protect actual users and editors, not trolls and vandals. Mackensen (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy is meant to protect the encyclopedia not 'users we like' over 'users we do not'. Any user, whether 'we' like them or not, who calls someone an "asshole" is clearly violating NPA and should be asked to stop... because WP:NPA exists to protect the encyclopedia itself, not so that we can pick and choose which users are allowed to behave badly. When we act that way rather than being civil it is disruptive and damaging to the project as a whole. This should be obvious, but somehow we always get these ridiculous arguments that 'it is ok for admins to be incivil to the users they are blocking for incivility'. It is understandable for people to slip up from time to time when provoked/angry, but it should never be allowed / accepted. Users are routinely blocked for comments like those from several people above. We either need to start blocking 'favored' users like admins just as routinely (which would generate more conflict but at least be less hypocritical) or extend the same leniency to regular users who get angry / lose their cool from time to time. --CBD 12:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, CBD, but stand that on its head. Is the encyclopedia better served by protecting a troll (who's only gone because I blocked his IP for a month) or Jaranda, who left because he got no support? Mackensen (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with CBD here. Although, yes, Jaranda was dealing with trolls, it's not appropriate to use personal attacks against them. It encourages their trollish behavior. I know that's not really the reason we have WP:NPA in place. Plus, admins are supposed to set a good example, so violating NPA at all (even towards bad-faith users) should be strongly avoided. In the end, though, we can't make a big deal about it: an ordinary editor would just get a warning. I'm more concerned about Jaranda quitting than anything else. Mangojuice^talk 13:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Admins are human (shock). I'm very concerned that Jaranda didn't feel he could reach out for support from other admins. I have to wonder if the somewhat poisonous environment on this noticeboard is part of the problem. Anyone who comes here with this kind of situation will be lectured for daring to slip up and exposed to public humiliation. Not from me--I'll block the sockpuppeting troll and call it a job well done. But that's me. Mackensen (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaranda had left before anyone said 'boo' about it... and given that we expect regular users to somehow deal with the much greater "public humiliation" of being blocked, your classification of gentle 'um, you should not do that', type comments to admins as too "poisonous" to endure is an absurd double standard. If we expect them to deal with it we ought to be tough enough to do so as well. You pull out the old false dichotomy of 'do you support the troll or the admin' again above... I support Wikipedia and the civility policy which helps keep it from being a snarling mass of obnoxious behaviour. Anyone who violates that should be asked to stop. Tolerating or excusing it from admins serves only to make claims of bias true and promote attacks and burnout of good users. --CBD 15:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Idiot isn't a strong personal attack. In some cases, frankly, it's descriptive. The later comments came after harrassment via the talk page and email. What we ought to be discussing is how we can better support admins who are subjected to this kind of harrassment. Jaranda isn't the first good user driven off, and he won't be the last. Mackensen (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

By all means... reach out, ask why they left, try to support them. We should do that with every user. Just don't encourage people to be incivil or claim that 'idiot is not a real insult if an admin says it'. That is "poisonous". --CBD 15:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I too am saddened that we seem to have lost a valued contributor and administrator. Is there anyone who can reach out to this person? Newyorkbrad 13:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User TheBee - Self promotion and repeated false charges of "hate group"

Please look at this. I don't believe it qualifies as a personal attack but this user is over the edge - repeatedly suggesting and inserting into articles that an organization (PLANS) (an organization I am loosly associated with) that is critical of Waldorf Education (another organization I am associated with) is a "hate group". This has been going on for months. The article "PLANS" contains many edits where he continually included this language and the talk page has more of this. These claims spill over to the Rudolf Steiner article and the Rudolf Steiner's Views on Race and Ethnicity article.

[41]

Amazingly, he supports this "hate group" claim with links to his OWN diatribes both here at Wikipedia and on his OWN personal websites. We've put up with this for a long time. Perhaps it's time for administrators to have a look at this. While most of us know this user to be famous for sensationalism, tossing around unfounded claims of hate group activity is a serious issue.

Here he produces his own website (TheBee and four other people) to advertise.it. His websites include Americans4WaldorfEducation, WaldorfAnswers and TheBee.

[42] [43] [44]

And here he starts making the claim of "hate group" [45] Notice - no edit summary. [46] [47] [48]

Here we have other defamatory claims supported ONLY by his own website [49] [50]

And completely ridiculous implications based on actual sources [51] [52] [53]

This user has been a pain, as I said, for months - and his edit-waring the bottom of several locked articles.

Thanks for looking into this! Pete K 03:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And he's still at it: [54]

Pete K 16:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is a community ban appropriate in this case?

There is an editor who has been problematic for a long time editing articles on plant taxonomy, see this which mostly discusses naming convention violations. Further investigation by interested parties by ToL members reveals that the user has been adding lots of OR, and not just to WP, he has backed up his OR by adding entries to wiktionary too. Since this editor only edits in this area, is not making good contributions elsewhere and seems to be using WP and sister projects just to advance his taxonomy theories (and its going to take a while for people to weed out the bad contributions he's made due to the complex nature of plant taxonomy), would a community ban be applicable in this case? --Peta 03:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd support it. After looking at his contribs, this kind of sneaky POV pushing is way worse than run of the mill vandalism and certainly harder to fix. He should at least be blocked until the mess is cleaned up to prevent him from causing further disruption. that being said, I'd totally support and actually prefer an indef ban. pschemp | talk 03:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading over the facts I have to say that is the sneakiest POV pushing/vandalism I've ever seen. To fix the problems listed someone would probably need to go through each and every one of his edits considering the complexity of the situation. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. At the vewry least the user should be blocked until the extent of the problem is established, to prevent further escalation of the problem. Guy 08:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The italicization issue is the least of it--in fact I think Brya has a (very narrow) point on that subject. What is of more concern to me is Brya's unwillingness to cooperate, tendency to claim ownership of articles, and abusive behavior towards several other editors (not just me) who have dared to try to edit those articles in any way. See discussions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, particularly with regard to the nomen nudum, nomen conservandum articles, for the tip of the iceberg. Brya has extensive knowledge of botanical nomenclature and has contributed valuable material, but his/her behavior is inexcusable. MrDarwin 13:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made the block as an previously uninvolved party. pschemp | talk 13:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the block. It should be long enough to at least assess and correct all the damage done. As there are few botany editors this might take a while. I think Brya's one supporter shows a serious lack of integrity, almost as if Berton is trying to show how poorly even Brya's supporters think of her, so should not be taken too seriously as a supporter, but also not as evidence of a single, negative, type of support for Brya. KP Botany 18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)~

Explain lack of integrity. As you is a novice here, better read Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.Berton 19:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You may have to debate my point, which was about the content of your post, the threat you posted, not you. However, you made your personal attack clear enough that an administrator should simply take you seriously:

THIS is a real threat.Berton 18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Threats lack integrity by failing to adhere to professional standards. KP Botany 20:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

KP Botany I think Wikipedia can be a better place, in that the people can really contribute willingly and mainly they be friends, I think of certain way I demonstrated that, now you have been demonstrating exactly the opposite of that, like with Users: Brya e Tajik.Berton 21:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tajik appears able to speak for himself quite well, and others at Afghanistan agreed with my concerns about the seriously Iranian POV of the article, not just NasarKhan, and ultimately Tajik left many of the edits stand and is actually trying to make things work out--what one should try to do--in spite of his frustration, well placed, at NasarKhan's edit style, and in spite of disagreements about content with NasarKhan. You might want to compliment them on how much they are trying to do, rather than criticize. I suspect that after the holidays the two and others concerned about Afghanistan articles at Wikipedia will work things out, as everyone is actually trying to do over their now, in spite of thousands of years of disagreement.

But now you sound just like Brya, attacking a side issue, Afghanistan, instead of taking responsibility for your own poor etiquette, threats. Possibly this is just a misunderstanding due to language barriers. However, your presenting these side arguments just like Brya does have made me change my mind about calling for only a temporary ban on Brya, and I now vote for a permanent one. If you want to discuss Tajiks, Pashtuns and Iranians, take it over to the many lively discussions on the various Afghanistan and South Asian boards right after the holy days and see how things work out. KP Botany 00:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No doubt that you have to learn much more things beyond languages.Berton 12:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The biggest issue with Brya is his/her disruptive effect on other botanical editors, through (1) reverts, (2) snarky edit summaries, and (3) comments on talk pages that disparage the works of other editors and push his/her POV. I think the "palaeodicot" issue is overblown, but it is precisely because of the climate that Brya has fostered that other editors would see an insidious aspect. And in some cases Brya's legitimate corrections have fed the controversy, whereas the same corrections from a less contentious editor would have been easily accepted. I support a block, to allow other editors to sort out the issues without interference. I won't support an indef ban, but I fear that when Brya returns, so will the problems.--Curtis Clark 13:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Indef ban is arbitrary and can be considered an example of digital maoism! Berton 13:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not "arbitrary" when the editor has repeatedly been disruptive, uncooperative, rude, insulting, and abusive towards numerous other editors. It is not "arbitrary" when the editor has repeatedly pushed a particular POV in articles, and refused to let others express another POV or even a NPOV. It is not "arbitrary" when an editor has repeatedly asserted ownership over articles and refuses to let any other editors touch them. It is not "arbitrary" when all of these behaviors have been observed, documented, and commented on by numerous other editors. It is not "arbitrary" when it has been corroborated by third parties not involved in the disputes. It is not "arbitrary" when Brya has been treated with kid gloves for well over a year, and given a second chance many times over. Like Curtis Clark, I have no doubt that when Brya returns, he/she will continue to edit and behave in exactly the same fashion. MrDarwin 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is arbitrary, simply for the fact that he cannot defend of these accusations, and the applied punishment (indef ban) it is desproporcional to the "committed crime". Berton 14:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Judging by your user talk page history you're pretty buddy buddy with Brya. The "committed crime" is a consistant effort to compromise the integrity of wikipedia through ommission, creating sources to support own argbuments and just plain lying. What makes it worse is the depth and effort that these have been performed with and Brya, judging from all sources, has been unflinching in his actions despite all evidence. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am considered buddy of him (this is not a crime), but I think that doesn't interest anybody, I don't share with several opinions of him, but your contributions were undoubtedly important, I believe that he in a certain way he sought the confrontation and for that it deserves a punishment, but certainly not indef ban.Berton 14:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this case has to be taken to Arbcom.Berton 15:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Banned users are typically blocked from editing all or parts of Wikipedia. They may be banned by the Arbitration Committee, by Jimbo Wales or by the Wikimedia Board of Trustees.

Users may also be banned by community consensus — when a user exhausts the community's patience to the point of being blocked and none of English Wikipedia's ~1000 admins will unblock.

Community bans must be supported by a strong widespread consensus. Before blocking someone for this, you should be very sure there is or would be widespread community support for the block; note it with reasons on WP:ANI for others to sanity-check. Such users can be considered banned and must be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community")."

It seems that there is not consensus here! Berton 15:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully endorse this block and had considered doing it myself on a number of occasions. Joelito (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you say because? Berton 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruption, slow edit warring, violation of consensus, exhausting community patience, insertion of OR and non-adherence to NPOV. Joelito (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Berton, your threat to me here here is entirely inappropriate. Please remain civil. pschemp | talk 17:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Berton is making threats; English is not his native language and in his frustration I believe he's simply chosen poor wording for his requests. He believes Brya has been treated unfairly (something with which I disagree) and that proper procedure for blocking or banning is not being followed (where Berton may have a point). MrDarwin 18:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you MrDarwin. I just want justice.Berton 18:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I request the unblock of User:Brya for flagrant violation of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy: lack of community consensus. Thanks Berton 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A non consideration of this request can be interpreted as bad faith and the consequence will be a decision for Arbcom. Will we avoid that?Berton 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One more threat and you will be blocked. --InShaneee 18:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

THIS is a real threat.Berton 18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a real warning, as you'll find out if you don't stop being disruptive. --InShaneee 18:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Berton, while it is certainly unusual for someone to be 'community banned' without ever having been blocked before... Brya's comments had become increasingly condescending towards many users and Wikipedia in general. Do you see any chance of that changing? Because if not I don't think there is much hope of a long term future here. Brya took the position that the majority who disagreed with him were wrong and that Wikipedia suffers from allowing their views... which is never going to fly in a consensus driven project. Sooner or later that's going to lead to a community ban. If he were willing to compromise his preferences in favor of reasonable standards adopted by consensus then past contentiousness could be forgiven, but consider the APG III issue... clearly a standard which doesn't even exist yet cannot be 'verifiable' and has no place in determining the content of Wikipedia articles. No? Yet I haven't seen Brya agreeing with that seemingly inescapable truism. Instead, he has suggested that APG III will exist and will follow the standards he has argued... which may well be very reasonable guesses, but still are clearly 100% unverifiable. That can't work. Wikipedia can't be a diviner of what the future holds or an arbiter of what the best nomenclature system is... that isn't and should not be our purpose. We document current views of the world, whatever they may be, but Brya seems to want to instead document the 'correct' view. There needs to be some kind of change in his approach, and I don't see any indication that he agrees with that. --CBD 19:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please give a chance for him to amend himself. For the past of his contributions, make a temporary block, please.Berton 19:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started a poll here to see whether there is a community consensus that User:Brya should be banned. MrDarwin 19:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the ban should last long enough to check all of Brya's edits and references. I guess that means I'm for an indefinite. But I'm not certain about the correct nomenclature of this.

However, because Brya was given an infinite number of chances without ever being blocked, imo, the community created the monster that Bray became. By monster, I mean not the person, but the large and unwieldly resulting behavior exhibited that has wasted so much time in botany pages, continuing to do so now by having to discuss it here, on WP:TOL, and all over the place, and caused so much damage, the ferocious edit wars and rampant speculation and Brya's POV all over the place, and endless discussions about what to do about Brya.

I did not know that Brya had never been blocked, and this surprises me. However, when someone is allowed to continue disruptive behavior, that person can escalate the disruptive behavior directly as a response to being allowed to do so. This is my opinion, of course. But I see it a lot in web communities. My suggestion is ban Brya for as long as necessary to clean up or verify all of her pages, then allow Brya to return, if that is what Brya desires. Other posters may be right that the disruptive behavior will return right along with Brya, but if it does then just implace a permanent ban.

It may be that Brya would have acted exactly the same, whatever the community did, and it seems that whatever the community does or expresses, Brya does whatsoever he/she wants to do without any regard for the community. So, I don't really mean that the victim (the community) is responsible for what was done, just that an earlier block would have been appropriate, having not done that, maybe Brya is owed one more chance.KP Botany 20:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The current block is indefinite, not infinite. Certainly if after the mess is cleaned up, and if Brya asks to be given another chance, one should be given. However, right now the block is to prevent the situation from disinigrating further. Let me know when things have been been fixed, and we'll discuss it then. pschemp | talk 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up, as it seems like some are discussing the indefinite ban as if it is permanent. KP Botany 20:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Np. Right now, the block is preventative. As discussion pregresses, that could change either way. pschemp | talk 22:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

May I politely ask that we refrain from calling other editors a monster? Imho this is against wikiquette. TeunSpaans 08:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To have "created a monster" is a figure of speech in American English (not sure about elsewhere) that has certain connotations, often used self-disparagingly, or disparaging the creator of the "monster". One more example of across-language misunderstandings, which I think have contributed to this whole fiasco. MrDarwin 13:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I favor the indefinite ban also, I keep running across random plant articles that Brya has scrambled in one way or another (entirely deleting genus list from a family article?), and it's going to take a while to clean up. Also, I would want to hear evidence of a change of heart about how to interact with other editors. Stan 13:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This ban proposed by Petaholmes it is a blatant attempt lynching of user Brya that a long time passed making great contributions mainly in the areas of Taxonomy and Botanical Nomenclature, and with me this user always went gentile and I never had problems with him (unlike novices).Berton 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets blocked at Berlin

I have blocked Semlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ide Nov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely on suspicion of being sockpuppets of disruptive user Just the way (talk · contribs). Just the way made a number of POV-pushing edits to Berlin back in June, calling the Reichstag photo "Soviet propaganda", removing all mention of Kristallnacht, and talking about how the Nazis made "technical and aesthetical innovations" to the city. Semlow and Ide Nov have just made very similar additions: the phrase "the organizers made many technical and æsthetical innovations" occurs in this edit of Just the way's from 14 June and again in this edit of Semlow's from last night. Ide Nov showed up for the first time immediately after Semlow and began edit-warring against Lear 21 to revert to Semlow's version. (User:Kingjeff got caught in the crossfire: he once reverted to the POV version, making Lear 21 accuse him of sockpuppetry as well, but he quickly realized what was going on and started helping revert to the NPOV version.) —Angr 05:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The user keeps on removing content and adding an image he uploaded onto articles. [55]--Jersey Devil 06:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an WP:AIV case (and I've reported him there). Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked.--Konst.able 07:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Publicdefender99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

moved from WP:AIV for discussion--Konst.able 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Should be blocked until after November 7. This user is either Grace Hu, a candidate for the California Assembly, or one of her supporters or campaign staffers. This user keeps removing valid and well referenced information that is negative to Ms. Hu. User has been warned multiple times, and does not contribute to Wikipedia other than to vandalize the article Cerritos, California. --Banana Republic 04:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I for one am going to support the edits Publicdefender was making. It seems to me rather inappropriate for a section to exist in the Cerritos, California article devoted to detailed information about one person on the city council, positive or negative, political candidate or not. That is local news, probably important news. But this is not the kind of information we should have in a general article about a city. I don't want to see this user blocked for making unpopular changes. Mangojuice^talk 12:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:789suj98e7fh8sfdf98udfu8dfu9sdufdsf8377dh8nsdsncskj (diff; hist) .

Surely someone with a red link user name who vandalises Charles Darwin - but with a user name like this needs admin action in the face of policy re user names? SatuSuro 08:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User has already been blocked indefinitely. —Angr 08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Accounts beginning with 0101 and ending with 06

Any unblock requests made from usernames beginning with 0101 and ending with 06 coming from IP addresses in Hong Kong that were created in the last few days should be unblocked on sight. They belong to students of JMSC0101: Principles of Journalism and News Media at Hong Kong University which were blocked prematurely by a number of administrators on suspicion of being sockpuppet accounts. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Except the one which says User:0101willyonwheels06, should be obvious...--Konst.able 08:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Above account already blocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: these are students who have an assignment to write a great wikipedia article? :) Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Endgame1 (talk · contribs)

Not sure what to make of this guy... I have a feeling he's somebody's sleeper account. (Look at those contributions, which include mucking around with two peoples' RfAs in a bizarre fashion.) I thought I should bring it to your attention, since I have no idea what I should do about this. Grandmasterka 09:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I. I called him out for making bizarre, ridiculous accusations on Aksi great's RfA (such as calling him a Nazi for not agreeing to write very specific articles by the end of the candidacy period) Maybe a community block? He certainly is being disruptive. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I support a block for disruption, which appears to be the single purpose of the account -- Samir धर्म 23:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ldingley

Many of the images uploaded by this user have been deleted as copyright violations - a look over their contributions show a pattern of uploading photos from random sites and mistagging or claiming them as his own. I've got to get to bed for the night so if anyone else would like to take a look, this user has been uploading several images a day for more than a month - they all need to be reviewed. Shell ^babelfish 09:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Will review. FloNight 10:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Listed several images for deletion and left questions about more on Ldingley's talk page. [56] Ldingley used the Parliament of Georgia website as a source claiming PD. [57] I question if this a valid at least the way the lic is written. Is any one familiar enough with with Georgian copyright law to know if this is a valid PD claim? FloNight 12:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He actually provided his answer here. I think we can properly retag the images rather than have them deleted.--Kober 14:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That answer would be great except that its incorrect. More than five of the images he uploaded have been found on other websites - not like Getty Images where it would show he was the photographer, but on personal webpages at tripod or geocities where the photographers are unlikely to notice or complain. Four of these images were also uploaded to other websites claiming to be from various people - for instance, a photo of children from Georgia originally posted in 2005 to a homepage hosted at tripod was uploaded by Ldingley to Wikipedia last month claiming the author released into PD and listing the author as Rebecca James - source was given as trekearth, another site where the same picture was uploaded at the same time but under a different name; the photo has also been found on two other photo sites, all uploaded around the same date. As much as I'd like to assume good faith here, I find it hard to understand how he could have accidentally uploaded several photos from personal homepages, not his own, mistagged them, attributed them improperly and now claim that he buys said images for upload? Shell ^babelfish 20:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please dont call me a rat, its not nice and your tone if not really constructive. Please present evidence where I stole photos from "geocities" or "tripod." (I need to see them to charge their owners with photo theft). The children photo was actually by Mike Bugneri and Rebecca James. It is my fault that I didn’t include Mike. However, do not accuse me of image theft from geocities (actually maybe they uploaded my images which are available online) and call me a rat. Im sorry but im not a rat and you are smelling something else. Thanks a lot for your friendly response Ldingley 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One example is Image:Georgian kidssvanetia.jpg and Image:Georgian kids.jpg. The first image listed the source as trekearth.com (which calls Mike Bugneri the photographer) and the second identical image was listed as being from your personal collection. The image, in fact, comes from http://svanetitour.tripod.com/ and has been on the web since 2005 at that location. Some of the other images I deleted came from news agencies, which which were also claimed as "in your collection". Third, your most recent upload which you listed as public domain and are now claiming that you have permission for may have been copied from a book (I'll have more details as soon as I verify my source is correct). I'm sure I'll find more examples as I continue to review your contributions.

I'm sorry if you've been told by people that they are selling you these images with their copyrights; this doesn't appear to be the case in any of the instances I've come across so far. While it is taking some time, I have found an online source for each photograph I've reviewed so far. You may wish to look in to the possibility that someone is scamming you. Shell ^babelfish 22:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible use of proxies in months of vandalism

There's something strange going on at Netherlands national football team, Ajax Amsterdam, FK Partizan, Abdullah Gegić, Ertuğrul Sağlam and Muhsin Ertugral. A lot of IPs have all made exactly the same vandalous or semi-vandalous edits to these articles (for instance removing the list of past Ajax managers or changing the nationality of one of Partizan's former managers), all in (roughly) the same order. The IPs involved are:

• 80.227.0.153 (talk · contribs): Ajax, Partizan, Ajax, Ajax, Netherlands, Netherlands, Ajax and Netherlands
• 80.58.205.47 (talk · contribs): Ajax, Netherlands, Partizan, Ertugral
• 165.228.133.11 (talk · contribs): Partizan, Ertugral, Ertugral, Ertugral, Partizan, Ajax, Netherlands
• 212.50.0.221 (talk · contribs): Partizan, Ajax, Netherlands
• 200.21.174.5 (talk · contribs): Ajax, Netherlands, Partizan, Ajax, Netherlands, Partizan
• 125.18.166.54 (talk · contribs): Ajax, Partizan, Ajax
• 194.171.121.8 (talk · contribs): Partizan, Partizan.
• 82.168.59.236 (talk · contribs): Partizan, Gegić, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Saglam, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Saglam, Partizan, Saglam, Saglam, Ertugral, Ertugral, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam (note the edit summary), Saglam, Ertugral, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam, Partizan, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam, Partizan, Saglam, Ertugral, Ertugral.
• 82.92.94.108 (talk · contribs): Netherlands, Netherlands, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Saglam, Partizan, Ertugral, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam

The IPs involved might be proxies, so further action might be necessary: [58]. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Other IPs involved are 219.87.146.160, 194.171.121.10, 194.171.121.25, 194.171.121.27, 148.244.235.4, 148.233.120.49, 193.164.254.50 and 80.81.53.100. I'll provide the diffs later today. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, 27 IPs are suspected now. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A further note: 80.81.53.100 (talk · contribs) had already been indefblocked as an open proxy. However, the very first edit coming from this IP, was a request to have the autoblock lifted, which read: "It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of General Tojo." Are the edits from this IP, and with it the edits from the other 30-ish IPs, consistent with Tojo's editing style? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The vandal has also created several sleeper accounts on October 8th, presumably in order to avoid the semi-protection at Ertuğrul Sağlam. Among these accounts are Larsnieuwehuizen (talk · contribs), Katie1987 (talk · contribs), Achilles10 (talk · contribs), KarelKoophandel (talk · contribs), Savas77 (talk · contribs), DaphneLuilak (talk · contribs) and Ronald75 (talk · contribs). This might indicate that there are more sock accounts lurking. Has the time come to act on this, or should I wait? PS. The names Larsnieuwehuizen, DaphneLuilak and KarelKoophandel indicate that this could be a Dutch vandal. Is that compatible with any known vandal? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username, vandalism and possible attack on User:Alphachimp

Thebonerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new account that has made one inaapropraite edit to Giant Panda (diff [59]) , but also posted this to his user page which makes me think he's a sockpuppet for someone with a chip on their shoulder about Alphachimp, but in any case, has not become a member in order to help develop an encyclopedia. --Siobhan Hansa 13:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Thebonerman. Hope that is ok. --Guinnog 13:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you hadn't, I would have. —Angr 13:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. If you hadn't I probably would have. Alphachimp 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon Vandal of Battle of Mogadishu Page

User:207.190.175.254 has struck again vandalizing the Battle of Mogadishu page (partly a good thing because I was able to check his contributions and find the old version of a section he vandalized before), anyways block him please. He's been warned numerous times, and blocked at least once. PPGMD 13:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy/paste move

Somebody copy/paste moved the previously-moved Punk Goes '90s to Punk Goes 90's, so now I am unable to move it back. Despite the Wikipedia image showing the title to be Punk Goes 90's (as it was on an early online release of the cover art), the actual name on the CD case (and the grammatically correct spelling) is Punk Goes '90s. Sources are here, here and here. Please merge article histories and move back to Punk Goes '90s. Thank you. --HarryCane 14:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Fenton and Hungrygirl

Note: I have removed this dispute from WP:AIV. Alphachimp 14:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I have had it up to here with this vandal. because I have started contributing to wikipedia because, MatthewFenton slanders me on this page about being a troll. I think this a good reason to ban this user for not assuming good faith. I don't know where he gets off accusing me of being a troll. Not only that, but I haven't done anything wrong. All my edits are in trying to get rid of a user's negative comments about wikipedia. MathewFenton keeps adding back the user's negative comments because they were friends. I have checked the history and I see that they are good friends. He is showing biased toward the user and doesnt' care about wikipedia. I have even given explanations in attempt to talk out why I don't like the user's negative comments. Mathew Fenton continues to erase them without any explanation and then continues his unacceptable behavior by coming here and slandering me. I think this is calls for a ban. He also has erased my comments from Charlesknight's page repeatedly. You are not allowed to erase comments from pages and I have had to add them back several more than 3 times. Hungrygirl 14:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your actions are of a trollish nature. Wikipedia isn't censored, and if you dont like a users opinion then don't read it. From your contributions your account has only been used to follow Charles Knight. --Alex (Talk) 14:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hungrygirl appears to be a sockpuppet, judging from its contribs. Michael K. Edwards 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hungrygirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Blatant troll: Has been doctoring comments on User talk:Charlesknight on a daily basis and sending me "vandalism warnings" for reverting them - It appears this user has been trolling/stalking Charles since the 12th ([60], [61] - also check contribs for message doctoring.) --thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not make accusations. I am not a troll and when you make accusations without any proof, that isn't assuming good faith. You're breaking a wikipedia rule just like Matthew Fenton. Happy editing Hungrygirl 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If the accusations continue, I will take it up with an administrator. I am not a troll and if I am continued to be accused of one, I have a right to go to an administrator about it. I don't care how many edits I've made. You have no right to make accusations. This is about Mattthew Fenton's vandalism. I'm done. goodbye Hungrygirl 14:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not threaten other users. It is contrary to the spirit of this community, and also not allowed per Wikipedia's harrasment policy. If you wish to make a complaint about a user, please follow the steps in our dispute resolution procedure. As stated at the top of this page, this page is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Thank you, Daniel.Bryant 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Would support an indefinite block of the troll. Just settle it, go back to working on the encyclopedia, let's not waste time on trolls. – Chacor 14:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur (edit conf.) Daniel.Bryant 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Sorry I moved it here, I just wanted to clear AIV. Alphachimp 14:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears we got the "troll" bit right. Daniel.Bryant 14:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but an indefinite block seems harsh. I petition to change it to a temporary block. --Mihai cartoaje 12:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(Other) Admin assistance, re: User_talk:Gary123

I'm sorry to ask for help again, but I'm still just a newbie admin and am not quite sure how to proceed. Gary123 (talk · contribs) keeps posting a notice to all on my talk page indicating that John Smith's (talk · contribs) has a vendetta against him. He links to Talk:People's Volunteer Army, which contains more of the same. His talk page also "documents" this user's personal vendetta. For now, I've just removed his comments from my talk page, but I don't know how to handle this situation. I'm inclined to delete his "documentation" and push him to WP:RfC or WP:M, but I'm not entirely convinced he's acting in good faith. Um. Help? (And sorry! Don't bite the new admin!) -- Merope 15:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Gerard Doyle

Gerard Doyle (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for a week for edit-warring on Parkinson's disease, having just come off a prior block for "sabotaging a checkuser request" that had been filed on suspicion of his being a sock of deservedly banned User:General Tojo. Has this user now succeeded in committing Wiki-suicide by edit summary here? Newyorkbrad 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Centrx (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) beat me to the punch and indef blocked the user. (His WP Glossary probably cinched the deal.) -- Merope 17:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

lol. I just left a message on the blocking admins page about that. He's also left some interesting messages on the talk page (both his current rant he's using to blank everything else, and in the bottom few messages before blanking. --Crimsone 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have contacted you directly, Crimsone, but figured you would want some other admin to throw the switch this time. (I actually am not as convinced as some others that "reverting warnings" is a serious problem, but his overall pattern of conduct was going beyond the pale.) Newyorkbrad 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Newyorkbrad - much appreciated. As you say, his pattern of behaviour really was beyond the pale, so I figured that it made sense just to mention it to Centrx, who'd blocked him earlier. On the upside though, it's always nice to be called welsh! The blnking of warnings wasn't really the problem, but he'd blanked quite a lengthy page, even after telling him that he should arhive rather than blank (I wouldn' mind betting he already knew that mind.

It seems to me that the feeling of "ownership" of user talk pages is a bit of a problem as a whole. Is there an essay/explanation or guideline on the purpose an, uses, and importance of userspace? --Crimsone 17:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Seems that even as an indef blocked user, he's insiting on blanking the talk page and re-inserting the "glossary", even after centrx's revert. Is it worth reverting back and protecting? Crimsone 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Gorram Centrx beat me to it again. ;) I don't brook disruption. -- Merope 17:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL - fair play, he's nothing if not on the ball! Very quick indeed! --Crimsone 17:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:70.129.99.99

User:70.129.99.99 has vandalized three times today. Looking at the history of the user's talk page, the user has vandalized many, many times over the past several months. All of this was deleted from the talk page except what was added today. Can this user be banned? Bubba73 (talk), 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 18:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon vandal on Pullman related pages

Just an FYI... Yesterday I blocked 207.63.107.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for vandalism to George Pullman, Pullman Strike and a few other related pages. After his block expired today, he was back, so he's now blocked again, this time for a bit longer. 205.188.116.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made similar vandalism edits to the same pages as has 24.97.33.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 169.204.120.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). At least one of these IPs is a known AOL address, so we may see more trouble on these pages this week. Slambo (Speak) 17:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Another minor with personal information

User:Jolu posts locale, DOB and school email... should some of it get deleted? He has <10 edits, hasn't edited since August 16. Maybe try emailing? --user:Qviri 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Given his inactivity, I've just deleted the information and left a note on his talk page. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Merope 18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities

So this 82kb and growing behemoth has been open for 9 days and was relisted at AfD today for further consensus. At this point it is either a keep, delete, or no consensus and keeping it on AfD is just increasing the pain for the admin who eventually has to read through and close this... so any takers on puting it out of it's misery now? To make things more interesting, it appears that someone tried to solicit opinions from people who opined delete on another AfD, though I didn't check if they were successful or not. Some days I'm glad I'm not an admin.--Isotope23 19:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus (and what fun that was). Yomangani^talk 21:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You're a good man Charlie Brown.--Isotope23 00:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

wikirules vs insults and annoyance.

Here is an intersting point to ponder if say User:Imprevu might be right about a specific violation of wikietiquette. For example signature. I know images are not welcome although I am yet to have someone confirm that they are prohibited, but nonetheless let's assume they are. So does this allow a user to make a point on my talk page using Offensive and provactive language repeatedly? I mean if this user has a personal dislike of me or my image, and even if he is right about certain aspects? Does it justify his actions? Moreover I am prepared to comply with wikirules and change my signature, but I would like someone to have a serious discussion with that user prior, particulary to the vigilante stand he has taken against me. Diffs:[62], [63], [64], [65]. --Kuban Cossack 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Re images in sig: It's not a policy violation, but it's bad form and it adds some unnecessary stress on the server. Regarding personal attacks and incivility... well, that's it's own problem that is separate from the issue with your signature. I haven't reviewed your diffs, but from your description I can come to a conclusion: There is no excuse to be incivil. But maybe it's time you stopped responding to this person at all. ---J.S (t|c) 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Who are you J.S., an administrator? My advice to you is stop giving your "bystander" suggestions? Whether it policies or guide lines its all called RULES. They're all manmade, created either by administration or consensus, to follow them or to obey. They're not created for your amusement to pick and choose. That simple."...unnecessary stress on the server." How about unnecessary stress on USERS.

Regarding incivility, it was very uncivil not to follow WiKi guidelines regarding issue dispute and not to talk it over. It was not very civil not to invite me to this postings and discuss it behind my back without hearing me out. And it was uncivil J.S.. to come to my personal page making unsubstantiated statement and not responding to my questions. Please, do so.

Regarding "Personal Attack" issue. You SHOULD review his Diffs and mine too before coming to ANY conclusion. Otherwise its very amateurish and bias...I can understand everything where Kuban Cossack are coming from (not to agree with everything though), but his stand as me using "dress code" instead of "rules" insulted him - just puzzled me. The only conclusion I can come to is that he's not familiar with that term, but please enlighten me.

Now, Will we solve those issues in civil way without name calling or not? Im ready if you are, please let me know. Imprevu 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility begins at home. Your above message is anything but. Please review WP:CIVIL and don't lash out at J.S. for trying to help. We're all volunteers here and he was urging calm, so your tone was inappropriate and an apology may be in order. I'm not suggesting that it's required, but it would be a nice demonstration of good faith. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Persistent copyright problems by User:Jonathan ryan

I have been dealing with User:Jonathan ryan who persistently has been uploading images [66] that clearly are copyright violations, and places improper licensing tages. He is improperly claiming public domain over some images. Also, claiming he's the creator even though it's clearly not the case, with the names of the photographers/copyright owners marked on the photo. [67] [68] [69] ([70] [71] [72] - these already deleted) He also has misrepresented the time/place that the photo was taken. [73] [74] [75] I have tried my best to assume good faith, to think that he is well-meaning and just doesn't understand about copyrights. I have left numerous messages to try and explain about copyrights, in addition to the standard copyright problem messages he's received. I don't think he will listen to me anymore, and maybe someone else can get through to him? Otherwise, I think he is heading towards an indef block, per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Protection. I would appreciate any second opinions on this. --Aude (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Image sources are detailed here. --Aude (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I left a final warning. Jkelly 22:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't like to block users that may mean well, but his edits and uploads have not been helpful for Wikipedia. I've been able to get through to other users about copyright issues, but he doesn't seem interested. --Aude (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Probable sock User:Gtorresjr at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjinderpal Sekhon

Gtorresjr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making quite a scene at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjinderpal Sekhon, including general incivility, baiting, trolling, comment blanking and indications of a rather high level of knowledge of Wikipedia policies and systems for someone who just signed up. Anyone care to give him the onceover? --Aaron 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolling of Memory Alpha

Several users of the "Lostpedia" are trolling Memory Alpha (Check history) addingg no existant AfDs, speedy deleteions, multiple PRODs. Likely due to the fact there article was deleted for the 5th time tonight. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what action is needed? There are specific places for requesting page protection or vandal blocks. 90.192.92.77 (talk · contribs) has been warned and seems to have stopped, and he seems to be the lone offender today. --W.marsh 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

The following pages need protection:

1. Butterfly
2. Rashi

I thought I could protect these pages by putting the protection tag on them myself, but I guess there is more involved than that. These pages are vandalized on a regular basis. Most of the people who do it are supposed to have been blocked from editing, but they keep on doing it over and over and over again. Just check the pages' histories and you will see.

Sometimes, the people will erase the entire article and just leave a single profane word in its place. Other times, they just rewrite paragraphs, throwing in raunchy words to make the subject look like a sex-starved pervert, especially in the Rashi page. Please protect these pages!!! (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, but there really isn't enough recent vandalism to justify protecting them. Also, requests for pages to be protected should go here. Thanks. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Improper unprotection of Albert Einstein

User: Kingboyk unprotected Albert Einstein with the comment “Protected Albert Einstein: Our high visibility articles should not be protected for long periods, and the attack on this article was trivial and could have been solved by a block (see The Beatles, we get crap every day)” This article was vandalized 31 times by 24 different IPs in 3½ days. That is hardly trivial in my book. Which of the 24 IPs does he propose to block. Also it had not been protected for a “long period” – only 2 days. It seems to me that an admin should be less bold in abusing his power. --teb728 23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you've directed Kingboyk here, but I would strongly recommend asking him privately on his talk page first and giving him a chance to reply before posting on ANI in the future. I've also taken a cursory glance at the situation, and I don't find anything wrong with the unprotection. The article, a relatively high-profile one, had already been semiprotected for over two days; semiprotection is not meant to be used generally for lengthy periods of time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. This article is regularly vandalized by various anon vandals about ten times a day every day whenever it is not semiprotected. What in your opinion should be done in such a case? Blocking individual IPs does no good, because the vandalism comes from many different IPs. I fail to see any reason against long-term semiprotection—particularly for a high-profile article. If nothing can be done, good editors will just take problem articles off their watchlists, the vandalism will go uncorrected, and the reputation of Wikipedia will suffer. --teb728 01:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is explicitly in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia to have any page protected or semiprotected for a great length of time. Unfortunately, this means that very high-profile pages get vandalised often, but high-profile pages also tend to be the most watched, and thus the vandalism is always fixed within a minute or so. Except in the case of sudden and extreme onslaughts of vandalism, pages should not be semi-protected at all; in the case of concerted vandalism efforts, blocks combined with day-long semi-protection nearly always solve the problem. —Cuiviénen 02:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no mention (or implication) in WP:SEMI about “sudden and extreme onslaughts of vandalism” or “day-long semi-protection.” What it does say is “A page can be temporarily semi-protected by an administrator in response to serious vandalism, in which the page is getting a large number of vandalism edits from so many different anonymous … accounts that blocking them individually is not a solution. … Semi-protection is a temporary measure used to stem vandalism on a page until the attack of vandalism is regarded as over. Some articles with a history of vandalism, such as George W. Bush or Jew, may be semi-protected on a continuous basis.”

It seems to me that this applies to Albert Einstein: The page is getting a large number of vandalism edits from so many different anonymous IPs that blocking them individually is not a solution. Any time semiprotection is removed the vandalism returns shortly; so the attack of vandalism cannot be regarded as over. Like George W. Bush and Jew, the article has a history of vandalism, which suggests that it be semi-protected on a continuous basis.

If is not fair to the editors who watch an article to rely on them to revert vandalism that you could easily block. If this unprotection stands, I for one will stop reverting anon vandalism on this article. And I suspect that a lot of other resident editors will feel the same (particularly considering that a bunch of carpetbaggers are trying to impose an infobox on the article against the wishes of a many resident editors). --teb728 07:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Supercharger edit -- personal info

This edit has been reverted, but it included someone's phone number. Should it be removed from the page history? -- Coneslayer 00:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It might not be real, but I'll take care of it. Thanks for bringing it up. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sandyvandy

I put a warning on Sandyvandy's talk page regarding blatant vandalism of Al-Kateb v Godwin. They responded by vandalising my talk page. Does this warrant a block? Chovain 01:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This user just removed this section (only to be reverted by someone else) - can someone please block them? They're being a royal pain. Chovain 02:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Indefed, someone is checking for socks -- Tawker 02:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

John Reid

John Reid recently reinserted highly uncivil language bordering on personal attacks into template:wr3. Warning templates are generally applied by users with the substitution syntax, so that the current text of the templates is inserted into the edit history of the users who apply them. Consequently, the insertion of highly uncivil language is disruptive because it is putting the uncivil language in the edit history of the user applying the templates. John Reid also threatened me with a severe, unspecified, retribution if he were blocked for disruption or if I were to revert his edits: he states that "Don't bully anybody into thinking you have more in your hands than a mop. If you try to bully me, you will see I don't accept it lightly." and "I'm the best friend you've got outside your RW faction. You don't want to lose me." [76] Whatever the nature of John Reid's open-ended threat, I would consider it to be disruptive as well. John254 02:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Grandmasterka has reverted, I've protected it temporarily (no communication between me and Grandmasterka by the way, though I've seen him around) until yet another party takes a peek at the whole situation and determines how to respond to it all. Obviously, my protection may be unprotected/modified/etc... by any admin, no need to inform me, etc etc. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked John Reid for 24 hours for disruption ([77], [78]) and trolling ([79]). Ral315 (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Support block. Good move. We should not tolerate this. – Chacor 06:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like overkill to me, seems no consensus was reached at the template talk pages. Catchpole 09:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of John Reid's behavior was really deserving of a block. To be honest, I'm not completely clear on the situation, but it looks like he and John254 are engaged in an editing dispute, which tends to produce heated rhetoric. I don't think his language on the template talk page corresponds to a threat, per se. I'm not going to lift the block (I've mentioned this to Ral315 on IRC), but I'm not sure blocking was the best course of action. --Slowking Man 09:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• This block is inappropriate. Reid wasn't trolling, and certainly not making "open-ended threats". Rather, this is a rehash of the ongoing debate whether removing talk page warnings is a blockable offense. Reid's version of the templates isn't very nice, but neither is "stop this or we'll block you". I would likely have unblocked if not for the fact that Reid asked us not to. Instead, I would suggest mediation between Reid and 254. >Radiant< 09:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• From what I can gather Reid objected to the 'you may be blocked for removing warnings' wording on the grounds that it isn't true (admins seldom block for such - especially as alot of users place highly questionable warnings). In place of that he was trying to redefine the purpose of these 'do not remove warnings' templates to cover people who habitually remove perfectly valid warnings and then continue the disruptive behaviour. His wording was over the top and I tend to think that such people are rare, blocked repeatedly, and thus don't really need to have warnings displayed on their talk page to identify them as trouble... it's all in the block log. Personally I'd like to see these templates go away and would have said so when they were TfD'd had I known about it. Every other day we have some kind of problem related to this 'users cannot remove warnings' philosophy coming up on this page. User talk pages exist to promote discussion... not for harassment or as a 'wall of shame'. The whole concept is just wrong. --CBD 11:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone were to TfD them again, I wouldn't mind either. A note here would be wise since the people who actually have the power to enforce the template language (but don't) hang out here. I don't see how it helps to have warning templates that threaten blocks that most admins do not support. Thatcher131 11:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with TFD is that, in this case, it's backwards. There appears to be no consensus on this issue either way. That means that we cannot make it policy (which would require consensus in favor) and neither can we delete the templates (which would require consensus in opposition). The prime solution, of course, is rewording the templates to match reality. >Radiant< 12:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Likely sock of Joehazelton

207.67.146.62 (talk · contribs) is likely a sockpuppet of banned user Joehazelton (talk · contribs). Consider the similarities to IP addresses such as 207.67.146.232 (talk · contribs) and 207.67.146.146 (talk · contribs). Also, compare [80] (anon) to [81] and [82] (Joehazelton). Is checkuser necessary? NatusRoma | Talk 03:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

He's not banned, but blocked indefintely. However, this looks like a simple range block could be done if it is really that necessary. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

UVic Wiki

I happened to come across the University of Victoria Wikipedia page and noticed that a 'Hempology 101' club was added to the page. However, it stated some illegal content [The use and drug possession] which is in contradiction with the Criminal Code of Canada. Should this be removed? Please reply in my talk page. --Cahk 04:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been taken care of by another user. Please ignore--Cahk 05:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a real club(there biggest), yes illegal, but waht does that have to do with anything?

HomeComputer

It should be noted that a whole section that tried to violate someone's personal privacy was removed. – Chacor 11:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:HomeComputer's username is too similar to User:Home Computer. This is an unambiguous block under WP:U. —ptk✰fgs 07:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're more than able to see that my account[83], created on September 28, is a full week older than User:Home Computer's[84]? Apology accepted. --HomeComputer 07:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, User:Home Computer has contributions going back to June 2006[85]. Please submit a user name change request. Have a nice day. —ptk✰fgs 07:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Please follow this link, take note of what you observe, and help me understand how that can be. I'm not arguing...I just don't get it.--HomeComputer 07:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Click on the link number 86 above. It clearly states "22:49, June 15, 2006 Home Computer (Talk | contribs) (New user account)" Gdo01 07:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The link you are providing only shows when the User's talk page was first edited and not when the user first contributed. Gdo01 07:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

HomeComputer, what you are looking at is the edit history for his talk page, not his contribution history. Ben W Bell talk 07:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A ha! Here it is. User:Home Computer changed his or her name from User:DJSamwise on October 1, which was still three days after me. No matter. I'll submit a request to change my name as soon as I figure out how. Glad to put that matter to bed. Now, may we return to the real issue?--HomeComputer 07:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Miami problems

There seems to be an anonymous editor who is taking it upon himself to scream "NPOV" and "needs source" at Miami University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I had thought that the anon was changing his IP, so a block for disruption would be pointless, but after MiamiDolphins made the connection that this guy was annoying people at both articles, his IP suddenly changed, but it's the exact same edit. He's saying that there are weasel words, and that we should go by a four month old talk page discussion, even though those issues have been solved. I do not think that a block is right, nor do I feel that semi-protection is necessary at this stage, just yet. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The IPs are as follows (note the similar style in edit summaries as well as USE OF CAPS)

• 71.111.186.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 134.134.136.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fake sockpuppets? (Karmafist & Primetime)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yungun seems to be attracting supposed sock puppets of banned users. WardOn13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FlightCopy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claim to be socks of Karmafist, and Primetime4000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims, of cource, to be Primetime. I doubt those editors would both be suddenly interested in this minor musician. Any guesses about what's going on? -Will Beback 10:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

See also: [86]. FireyFireMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -Will Beback 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And Wordywiseman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who claimed to be WordBomb. -Will Beback 11:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, assumption of good faith would lead to the conclusion that these people really are the blocked users they claim to be... and therefor should be blocked. Problem solved? --CBD 11:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking back to that AOL vandal, who sought to get blocked just to cause collateral damage to other AOL accounts. Is that still a problem? -Will Beback 11:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Koenraad Elst

Elst has declared his interest in the New Age movement. Here is the reference that motivated my first edit: [87] (see the description that arrives at the bottom. That description is from VOI, Elst's publishing house). Consequently I keep the word "neo-paganism", but cancel "right-wing" which seems to have triggered the reaction. I apologize sincerely for the misunderstanding. TwoHorned 11:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible bot?

I feel bad about this, and I wish I could unblock him soon. But a brand new user Foxwhox (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) suddenly comes up and starts editing at upto 9 edits per minute tagging dead redirects for deletion. It seems like it could be a special purpose bot account (unless someone is very enthusiastic and manages to click/type that fast). I have been going through CAT:CSD for over an hour and there was another new user tagging redirects for deletion: Zhanghai (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), though nowhere near at that speed, perhaps they are related.--Konst.able^Talk 12:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

He's claiming not to be a bot. That's quite the edit rate for a non-bot. Alphachimp 12:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems odd a brand new user is doing maintenance chors, I say unblock and keep an eye on him. Gotta WP:AGF as always.--Andeh 12:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. My gut tells me this is the bottiest bot ever to bot: it's a brand-new user doing administrative tasks, using full edit summaries (though, admittedly, the summaries are unhelpful), and working at an incredibly fast pace. I think we should wait for his explanation for how he's doing this so quickly before we unblock. -- Merope 12:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone who can make (and has made) 9 edits per minute with nothing more than judicious use of a tabbed web browser and a pre-prepared list of pages, and who has also written 'bots, I can confirm that 9 edits per minute is achievable by a human and deliberately slow for a 'bot. Uncle G 15:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is no damage being caused then there is no danger in assuming good faith. HighInBC 15:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Green Fish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & sockpuppetry

• The Green Fish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lokqs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Weedro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 83.249.79.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems all to be the same user, according to their style of editing, behaviour, and article editing history. I came across this user after edits on Classical liberalism, Operation Gladio and Belgian stay-behind network. In the first this user was reverted by another user [88]. In the second article, Operation Gladio, this user removed a fact flag, and re-inserted material that is already available at Belgian stay-behind network [89]. In the latter case, this user tries to re-insert conspiricist information all linked to one source who is not an expert or writer about the Belgian stay-behind network. Is a checkuser warranted here, or should this be dealt differently? Thanks for any help. Intangible 13:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The return of quickpolls

A poll has been started on whether a certain user should be banned [90]. While I have no familiarity with the case or the user (who at first glance seems to be problematic, and has an RFC), I question the usefulness of a poll to decide upon a community ban. Thoughts, anyone? >Radiant< 13:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I also have no prior familiarity with the incident, however just to comment about polls deciding a community ban, I'm completely against it. A community ban issue should probably be the result of free-flowing discussion, not votes. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the incident either, however polling is a find way to aid discussion. As long it is not taken as straight voting. If you look at that page, yes they are polling, but they are explaining their votes.

I am sure that consensus will be based on those arguements and not simply a tally. HighInBC 13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Er, no. By my count, at least half of the participants are not in fact explaining their votes. >Radiant< 14:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That is my point, by your count. Now if you see somebody saying that the way they counted a poll should determine consensus than that is wrong. The people who did not comment, did not contribute much to the discussion. However the method is still a good way to talk. It is not polling that is evil, it is using the results of a poll as a reason to do something that is evil. imho. HighInBC 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Quickpolls were widely considered to be a mess - this poll should probably be stopped with an explanation that that's not the way we do things here. --Improv 14:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but for more information please scroll up this very page to the discussion titled "Is a community ban appropriate in this case?" which is where this (talk of blocking, not the original dispute) all started in the first place. MrDarwin 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A few comments: first, the poll was initiated only after User:Brya had been blocked by an admin (see discussion above), with the agreement of several other admins but after the objection of at least one editor. The poll was announced in the discussion on this page as well as on the project page. Second, perhaps it wasn't clearly stated but the poll was never intended to be a vote to block or ban Brya, but rather a poll to see whether there was support for blocking or banning, an action that had already been taken. Third, most of the votes are indeed explained, if you take "agree with MrDarwin", after I had made comments that others apparently agreed with and saw no need to expand upon, to be an explanation of their votes. MrDarwin 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User: 151.198.85.18

I've warned this guy over and over again and he just won't stop his constant vandalizing. Please block him. Mnpeter 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Try making a post here Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism after being sure he has been properly warned. HighInBC 15:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 31 hours by another admin. --W.marsh 15:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing on Deflation (economics)

An ip user from the 87.117.200.* range is editing disruptively on Deflation (economics). He is reverting to a version that includes unverifiable (read, innacurate) statements, and that attempts to push a fringe POV on economics. He is unable or unwilling to provide sources for his claims, though I have requested them multiple times. I would appreciate intervention. Thank you. JBKramer 17:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have provided sources to Mr. JBKramer, he's refusing to acknowledge them. He also called me a racist and threatened to "Spank me." I was quite shocked at the accusation and his threat to sexually assult me. 81.117.200.27 17:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This allegation is false. Review my edit history and block the disruptive editor, please. JBKramer 17:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to your latest IRC msg to me. Of course it's not on your edit history, but I kept logs. 81.117.200.27 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not on IRC. JBKramer 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are. Why must you distort the truth, which is also known as "fact creating" when those facts you are attempting to create do not hold water? I must protest your increasingly sexual overtoned language, your threats of assualt and sexual assault, your attempts to undermine the very system that holds our fabric together, and your oitose attempts to smear me before the community. Please cease and desist. 81.117.200.27 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

He is fishing, don't bite the lure, nobody is going to believe him without evidence. HighInBC 17:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fishing. These allegations are very true. 81.117.200.27 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I doubt that these allegations are true, I can check because I'm connected to #wikipedia. I'll check it when I return to my main machine. Shadow1 (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, this was a private message, not in channel. 81.117.200.27 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, what's the nickname you were using at the time of the incident, and what's the nickname JDKramer was using? Shadow1 (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was using 'HardKnockInTx' and he was using 'JBKramer' on DALNet. 81.117.200.27 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On DALnet. Really. Why were you discussing this on DALnet? Shadow1 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't set mode +i, so he was able to /who me by IP I guess. 81.117.200.27 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "official" channels are on freenode. Any other networks are not used by Wikipedia and we can't enforce anything based on actions that happen on other networks. Naconkantari 17:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, I was just bringing up the fact that I have logs of him threatening to spank me like a little "aryan monkey child." That's assualt and sexual assualt. 81.117.200.27 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)